History for ready reference, Volume 6

by J. N. Larned

to the President of the Council of Ministers of His Highness
the Khedive.
ARTICLE V.
No Egyptian Law, Decree, Ministerial Arrêté, or other
enactment hereafter to be made or promulgated shall apply to
the Sudan or any part thereof, save in so far as the same
shall be applied by Proclamation of the Governor-General in
manner hereinbefore provided.
ARTICLE VI.
In the definition by Proclamation of the conditions under
which Europeans, of whatever nationality, shall be at liberty
to trade with or reside in the Sudan, or to hold property
within its limits, no special privileges shall be accorded to
the subjects of anyone or more Power.
ARTICLE VII.
Import duties on entering the Sudan shall not be payable on
goods coming from Egyptian territory. Such duties may,
however, be levied on goods coming from elsewhere than
Egyptian territory, but in the case of goods entering the
Sudan at Suákin, or any other port on the Red Sea Littoral,
they shall not exceed the corresponding duties for the time
being leviable on goods entering Egypt from abroad. Duties may
be levied on goods leaving the Sudan at such rates as may from
time to time be prescribed by Proclamation.
ARTICLE VIII.
The jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals shall not extend, nor
be recognized for any purpose whatsoever, in any part of the
Sudan, except in the town of Suákin.
ARTICLE IX.
Until, and save so far as it shall be otherwise determined, by
Proclamation, the Sudan, with the exception of the town of
Suákin, shall be and remain under martial law.
ARTICLE X.
No Consuls, Vice-Consuls, or Consular Agents shall be
accredited in respect of nor allowed to reside in the Sudan,
without the previous consent of Her Britannic Majesty's
Government.
ARTICLE XI.
The importation of slaves into the Sudan, as also their
exportation, is absolutely prohibited. Provision shall be made
by Proclamation for the enforcement of this Regulation.
ARTICLE XII.
It is agreed between the two Governments that special
attention shall be paid to the enforcement of the Brussels Act
of the 2nd July 1890, in respect to the import, sale, and
manufacture of fire-arms and their munitions, and distilled or
spirituous liquors.
Done in Cairo, the 19th January, 1899.
(Signed) Boutros Ghali-Cromer.
A. S. White, The Expansion of Egypt,
Appendix V. (New York: New Amsterdam Book Company)
By a subsequent, agreement signed July 10, the exceptions in
the above relative to Suákin were abrogated.
EGYPT: A. D. 1899-1900.
Final defeat and death of the Khalifa.
Capture of Osman Digna.
Condition of the Sudan.
The Khalifa, who escaped from the scene of his overthrow at
Omdurman, in 1898, kept a following of his own tribe, the
Baggaras, sufficient to give trouble for more than another
year. At length, late in November, 1899, he was overtaken by
Sir Francis Wingate, who succeeded General Kitchener as
Governor-General of the Sudan, and was killed in a battle
fought near Gedil. Again Osman Digna, his able lieutenant,
escaped; but in January of the following year the latter was
captured and taken to Suez.
In a report to Lord Salisbury, made on the 20th of February,
1900, Lord Cromer, British Agent and Consul-General in Egypt,
gave the following account of the general state of affairs in
the Sudan:
"The territorial situation may be briefly described as
follows:—The frontier between the Soudan and the Italian
Colony of Erythræa has now been delimitated from Ras Kasar, on
the Red Sea, to Sabderat, a few miles east of Kassala.
Negotiations are proceeding which will, without doubt, result
before long in the delimitation of the small remaining portion
of the Italian frontier from Sabderat up to the point where it
strikes Abyssinian territory. The most friendly relations
exist between the British and Abyssinian Governments. The
general basis of a frontier arrangement in respect to the
country lying west of the Blue Nile has already been settled
with the Emperor Menelek. When the survey party, now being
employed, has finished its work, it may confidently be
expected that the detailed delimitation will be carried out
without much difficulty.
"An endeavour is being made to cut through the sudd which
obstructs the White Nile, and thus open up communication with
Uganda. To a certain extent this communication may be said to
be already established, for a mixed party, consisting of
British, French, and Belgian officers, with their followers,
arriving from the South, recently succeeded in getting through
and joining the Egyptian party, under Major Peake, which was
engaged in cutting the sudd. … From the moment of the
Khalifa's crushing defeat at Omdurman, the desert and Kordofan
tribes, with the exception of a certain number of Baggaras who
still adhered to the cause of their Chief, threw in their lot
with the Government. Most of these tribes, however, rendered
but little active assistance to the Government in the
subsequent operations against the Khalifa. Omdurman and the
Ghezireh [the tract of country lying south of Khartoum,
between the White and Blue Niles] were found to be full of
Arabs belonging to the Kordofan and far western tribes, who
had been brought from their homes by the Khalifa. They were
without any regular means of subsistence, but, in the existing
state of insecurity, it was for the time being impossible for
them to return to their own districts. … The inhabitants of
the districts which were raided by the Dervishes were obliged
to take refuge in the Ghezireh, with the result that the
situation remained practically unchanged until the Khalifa's
overthrow and death. Since then, the main objects of the
Government have been to send back to their homes the
inhabitants of the gum producing region, and to get rid of the
useless mouths from the Ghezireh. In respect to the first
point, some success has attended their efforts, but many
thousands of Arabs belonging to tribes whose homes are in
Kordofan and Darfour, still remain in the Ghezireh. … The
attitude of the Nubas and of other tribes in Central and
Southern Kordofan has, since the battle of Omdurman, been
perfectly satisfactory. … Some long time must certainly elapse
before prosperity returns to the tribes in the Soudan. The
population has wasted away under Dervish rule."
Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Egypt, Number 1, 1900, pages 43-44.
----------EGYPT: End--------
{203}
ELAM.
See (in volume 1)
BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE;
(in volume 4)
SEMITES;
and (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA, and PERSIA.
ELANDSLAAGTE, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
ELBE-RHINE CANAL PROJECT, The.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (AUGUST); and 1901 (JANUARY).
EL CANEY, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).
ELECTRICAL SCIENCE, Recent advances in.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.
ELIZABETH, Empress of Austria:
Assassination.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER).
EL ZANJON, Treaty of.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1868-1885.
EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION, British.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES; A. D. 1897.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL, The English.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JULY).
EMPRESS-DOWAGER, of China, The.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (OCTOBER), and after.
ENGINEERS, Strike and lockout of British.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1897.
----------ENGLAND (GREAT BRITAIN): Start--------
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894.
The commandeering question with the South African Republic.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1894.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.
Retirement of Mr. Gladstone from public life.
Earl of Rosebery Prime Minister.
His speech on the "predominant member" and Home Rule.
Weakening and overthrow of the Liberal Government.
Dissolution of Parliament.
Conservative and Unionist triumph.
Third Ministry of Lord Salisbury.
Mr. Gladstone, who had passed his 84th year, whose health was
failing, and who might justly consider that his public work
was done, resigned his post as Prime Minister, on the 2d of
March, 1894, and the Earl of Rosebery, on his recommendation,
was called by the Queen to take his place. Slight changes,
otherwise, were made in the cabinet, but the spirit in the
Liberal government was no longer the same. The new Premier
soon signified that his disposition in the matter of Home Rule
for Ireland was not quite what Mr. Gladstone's had been, by
using the following language in a speech (March 13) in the
House of Lords:
"Before Irish Home Rule is conceded by the Imperial Parliament
England, as the predominant member of the partnership of the
three kingdoms, will have to be convinced of its justice. That
may seem to be a considerable admission to make, because your
lordships will know that the majority of English members of
Parliament, ejected from England proper, are hostile to Home
Rule. But I believe that the conviction of England in regard
to Home Rule depends on one point alone, and that is the
conduct of Ireland herself. I believe that if we can go on
showing this comparative absence of agrarian crime; if we can
point to the continued harmony of Ireland with the great
Liberal party of this country; if we can go on giving proofs
and pledges that Ireland is entitled to be granted that boon
which she has never ceased to demand since the Act of Union
was passed. I believe that the conversion of England will not
be of a slow or difficult character. My lords, the question of
Home Rule is one that I regard not from the point of view of
Ireland only. It has for me a triple aspect. It has, in the
first place, the aspect that I believe that Ireland will never
be contented until this measure of Home Rule be granted to
her; and that, though you may come in on other issues and
succeed us who sit here, your policy of palliatives is bound
to fail. In the second place, I believe that not merely have
we in our Irish policy to satisfy those who live in the island
of Ireland itself, encompassed, as Mr. Disraeli once said, by
that melancholy ocean, we have not merely to satisfy the Irish
themselves within Ireland, but, for the good of our Empire and
for the continuity and solidarity of our relations with our
brethren across the Atlantic, it is necessary that we should
produce an Irish policy which shall satisfy the Irish people.
And, lastly, I view it from the highest Imperial grounds,
because I believe that the maintenance of this Empire depends,
not on centralization, but on decentralization, and that if
you once commence to tread this path, you will have to give
satisfaction under the same conditions certainly to Scotland,
and possibly to Wales, not in the same degree or possibly in
the same way, but so as to relieve this groaning Imperial
Parliament from the burden of legislation under which it
labours. I will not detain you further on this subject
to-night. I did not mean to dilate so much on the question of
Home Rule."
His remarks seemed to show an intention to postpone the
pressing of the measure. Distrust arose among the Irish and
uncertainty was created in the mind of the Liberal party. It
became evident very quickly that the Liberals, with the loss
of their old leader, had lost heart and faith in the policy to
which he had committed them, and that a serious weakening of
the political energies of the party had been produced. No
measures which raised troublesome issues were undertaken in
Parliament during the year of Mr. Gladstone's retirement: but,
at the session which opened in the following February (1895), the
government brought forward a number of high]y important bills.
{204}
The first to be introduced was a bill "to terminate the
Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouth."
The bill made provision for the creation of a representative
Church body, giving power to the bishops, clergy and laity to
hold synods and to legislate on ecclesiastical matters. It
entrusted ecclesiastical revenues to a commission; provided
for the transfer of churches and parsonages to the
representative body of the Church, and of burial grounds and
glebes to parish, district, and town councils; other property
of the Church to be vested in the commission before mentioned,
which should also have the charge of cathedrals, to keep them in
repair. The bill had its first reading on the 28th of
February, and its second on the 1st of April, but went no
further. It shared the fate of the other measures of the
Government, including a bill to establish local control of the
liquor traffic, and others for the remedying of defects in the
Irish Land Law, and for the abolition of plural voting, all of
which were extinguished by the sudden and unexpected overthrow
of the Government on the 21st of June. It was defeated on a
motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary for War, which
was made for no purpose but to start a question as to the
adequacy of the provision of certain ammunition stored for
use. When the vote was found to be against the Government
there was great surprise in both parties. But the Ministry had
been steadily losing support and was quite willing to resign,
which it did the next day. Lord Salisbury was sent for by the
Queen and accepted the task of forming a new Government, with
the understanding that Parliament should be dissolved as soon
as practicable, and the will of the country ascertained. In
the new Government, Lord Salisbury filled the office of
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with that of Prime
Minister; Mr. A. J. Balfour became First Lord of the Treasury;
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr.
Joseph Chamberlain Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. G.
J. Goschen First Lord of the Admiralty. Before the dissolution
of Parliament, which occurred on the 6th of July, a bill for
the amendment of the Factories Act, on which both parties
agreed, was passed. The elections that followed, beginning
July 13, resulted in the return of a majority of 152 in favor
of the new Ministry, which represented the coalition of
Conservatives and Liberal Unionists. The majority of the
popular vote on the same side in the three kingdoms was a
little more than 30,000, in a total poll of 4,792,512; but in
Eng]and the new Government received a majority of some
300,000. In Ireland the vote went heavily against them, and in
Wales and Scotland to a lighter extent. Of the Irish members
elected, 12 were of the Parnell faction and 69 Anti-Parnell.
The new Parliament came together August 12, and, after a brief
session, at which little was done, was prorogued September 5.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895.
Enforcement of claims against Nicaragua.
See (in this volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA (NICARAGUA): A. D. 1894-1895.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895.
The question of Chitral.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1895 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (January).
Agreement with France defining the boundaries of the
Hinterland of Sierra Leone.
See (in this volume)
SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (March-July).
Agreement with Russia concerning the northern Afghan frontier
and spheres of influence in the Pamir region.
See (in this volume)
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1895.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (July-November).
Correspondence with the Government of the United States
on the Venezuela boundary question.
See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (JULY) and (NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (November).
Action on the closing of the Vaal River Drifts by the South
African Republic.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1895 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (December).
Message of the President of the United States to Congress
on the British Guiana-Venezuela boundary dispute.
See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895-1896 (November-January).
Discontent and revolutionary conspiracy of Uitlanders in
the Transvaal.
The Jameson Raid.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1895 (NOVEMBER);
and A. D. 1895-1896.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1895-1896 (December-January).
The feeling in England and America over the
Venezuela boundary dispute.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1895-1896 (DECEMBER-JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896.
Establishment of the Sierra Leone Protectorate.
See (in this volume)
SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896.
Report on Old-Age Pensions.
The question of the practicability and expediency of a
national system of pensions for old age, which had been
agitated in England for some years, and which a royal
commission, appointed in 1893, had already examined with great
thoroughness and no definite result, was referred in 1896 to a
committee of financial experts, with Lord Rothschild at their
head. This committee reported that it could recommend no
scheme as satisfactory, though it put forward that of Sir
Spencer Walpole as open to less objection than others. The
scheme in question was as follows:
"1. Any person at 65 having an assured income of not less than
2s. 6d. and not more than 5s. may apply for a pension.
2. If the pensioning authority is satisfied as to the income a
pension may be granted.
3. The applicant must not be physically or mentally infirm.
4. To an income of 2s. 6d. 2s. 6d. is to be added.
To an income of 3s. 0d. 2s. 0d. is to be added.
To an income of 4s. 0d. 1s. 0d. is to be added.
5. 'Assured income' includes real estate, leasehold property,
securities, or annuities (Government, friendly society, or
insurance office), but not out-relief.
6. The guardians are to be the pensioning authority.
7. Not more than half of the pension is to be paid out of
Imperial taxation, the remainder out of local rates.
8. The pension is not to involve disenfranchisement."
The committee, however, pointed out some very strong
objections to this scheme, which they roughly estimated as
likely to apply to 443,333 persons, and to cost £2,300,000 a
year. On the whole, while they regarded the Walpole scheme as
the best suggested, the Rothschild committee held that, like
the rest, its inherent disadvantages outweighed its merits. In
effect, they pronounced the establishment of old-age pensions
to be impracticable.
{205}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896.
Report of Royal Commission on the financial relations
between Great Britain and Ireland.
See (in this volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1896-1897.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (January).
Agreement with France concerning Siam.
See (in this volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (January).
Excitement over the German Emperor's message to President
Kruger on the Jameson Raid.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1896 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (January-February).
Appointment of United States Commission to investigate
the Venezuela boundary.
Reopening of discussion with the government of the United
States on the arbitration of the dispute.
See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (February).
New treaty with the United States for arbitration of
Bering Sea claims.
See (in this volume)
BERING SEA QUESTIONS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (March-September).
Expedition to Dongola.
Beginning of an Anglo-Egyptian movement for the
recovery of the Sudan.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (May).
The New Radical party.
A New Radical party, under the leadership of Sir Charles Dilke
and Mr. Labouchere, issued a statement of its policy (May 19),
setting forth as its chief aim "the democritisation and
devolution of Parliament."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (June).
The Agricultural Land Bill.
Among the measures brought forward in Parliament this year and
carried by the Conservative government was one which aroused
bitter feeling and was sharply denounced, as being legislation
in the interest of the landholding class, at the expense of
the community at large. A ground of justice for it was found
by its supporters, however, in the extreme agricultural
depression of the time. This Agricultural Land Bill, as it was
styled, provided that, in the case of every rate to which it
applied, agricultural land should be assessed in future on
half its ratable value, while houses and buildings would still
be assessed on the whole of their ratable value. The bill
passed the Commons near the end of June, and went speedily
through the House of Lords.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (July).
Parliamentary movement to investigate the
British South Africa Company.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY);
A. D. 1896 (JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (August).
Suppression of an usurper in Zanzibar.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1896 (ZANZIBAR).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (September).
Papal Bull declaring Anglican orders invalid.
See (in this volume)
PAPACY: A. D. 1896 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (November).
Agreement with the United States for the settlement of the
Venezuela dispute.
See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896-1897.
"The Voluntary Schools Act" and
"The Elementary Education Act."
The Conservative Ministry of Lord Salisbury came to power, in
England, in 1895, under pledges to the Church that it would
revise the educational system in the interest of the
"Voluntary Schools" (mostly Church schools), as against the
secular or non-sectarian "Board Schools" which were steadily
gaining ground from the former, and proving superior
efficiency.
See, in volume 1,
EDUCATION, MODERN: ENGLAND: A. D. 1699-1870.
A bill to that end, for England and Wales, was introduced at
the end of March, 1896. In support of the bill it was stated
that, in the previous year, the voluntary schools educated
2,445,812 children, as against 1,879,218 educated in the board
schools, though the voluntary schools were, as a rule,
"understaffed," had less qualified teachers, and labored
generally under financial difficulties; but that a large
proportion of the members of the Church of England, as well as
Roman Catholics, made it a point of conscience that their
children should be educated by teachers of their own
denomination, and could not be forced to send them to board
schools without a gross exercise of religious intolerance;
that, finally, it would cost £25,345,635 to replace the
voluntary schools, and £2,250,000 yearly to maintain board
schools in their place, if they were not kept up. Therefore,
it was contended that they should receive a more liberal
allowance of state aid by parliamentary grant, to keep them
alive and improve their efficiency. Connected with provisions
to that effect were others which would completely reorganize
the system of school administration and control. They proposed
to take the administration to a great extent from the
Committee of Council on Education, where it had been
centralized, and to place it in the County Councils, to be
exercised by statutory educational committees appointed by
each Council. By what was called a "conscience clause," the
bill required separate religious instruction to be given to
children in schools (board or voluntary) wherever a
"reasonable number of parents" required it. The measure was
strenuously opposed on the ground that its aim was the
extinction of the board schools; that it would give them only
£17,000 out of £500,000, and give it, said Lord Rosebery,
"without any vestige of control, so that in 8,000 places where
only Church of England schools existed the Nonconformists
would have only the vague protection of the conscience
clause." So much debate was provoked by the bill, and so much
time was being consumed by it, that the Government was forced
to drop the measure in June, in order to save the other
business of the session from being spoiled,—promising,
however, to bring it forward again the next January. The
promise was redeemed, on the convening of Parliament in
January, 1897, in so far that a new Education Bill was brought
forward by the government; but the measure was very different
from that of the previous session. It was addressed solely to
the end of strengthening the voluntary or Church schools
against the board schools, firstly by increasing the aid to
them from public funds, and secondly by uniting them in
organized associations, under stronger governing bodies. The
main provisions of the bill were as follows:
"(1.) For aiding voluntary schools there shall be annually
paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an aid grant, not
exceeding in the aggregate five shillings per scholar for the
whole number of scholars in those schools.
{206}
"(2.) The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education
Department to such voluntary schools and in such manner and
amounts, as the Department think best for the purpose of
helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency,
due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary
subscriptions.
"(3.) If associations of schools are constituted in such
manner in such areas and with such governing bodies
representative of the managers as are approved by the
Education Department, there shall be allotted to each
association while so approved, (a) a share of the aid
grant to be computed according to the number of scholars in
the schools of the association at the rate of five shillings
per scholar, or, if the Department fix different rates for
town and country schools respectively (which they are hereby
empowered to do) then at those rates; and (b) a
corresponding share of any sum which may be available out of
the aid grant after distribution has been made to unassociated
schools.
"(4.) The share so allotted to each such association shall be
distributed as aforesaid by the Education Department after
consulting the governing body of the association, and in
accordance with any scheme prepared by that body which the
Department for the time being approve.
"(5.) The Education Department may exclude a school from any
share of the aid grant which it might otherwise receive, if,
in the opinion of the Department, it unreasonably refuses or
fails to join such an association, but the refusal or failure
shall not be deemed unreasonable if the majority of the
schools in the association belong to a religious denomination
to which the school in question does not itself belong.
"(6.) The Education Department may require, as a condition of
a school receiving a share of the aid grant, that the accounts
of the receipts and expenditure of the school shall be
annually audited in accordance with the regulations of the
Department.
"(7.) The decision of the Education Department upon any
question relating to the distribution or allotment of the aid
grant, including the question whether an association is or is
not in conformity with this Act, and whether a school is a
town or a country school, shall be final."
The passage of the bill was resisted strenuously by the
Liberals in the House of Commons. "Whether they regarded the
bill from an educational, a constitutional, a parliamentary,
or a social aspect," said Mr. John Morley, in his concluding
speech in the debate, "he and his friends regarded it as a
mischievous and reactionary measure." But the opposition was
of no avail. The bill passed its third reading in the House of
Commons, on the 25th of March, with a majority of 200 in its
favor, the Irish Nationalists giving it their support. In the
House of Lords it was ruled to be a money bill, which their
lordships could not amend, and they passed it with little
debate. In April, the government brought forward a second
school bill, which increased the parliamentary grant to Board
schools by £110,000. The sum was so trivial that it excited
the scorn of the friends of the Board schools, and did nothing
towards conciliating them. It became a law on the 3d of June.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896-1897 (May-April).
Continued controversies with the South African Republic.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1896-1897 (MAY-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (January-May).
Arbitration Treaty with the United States defeated in
the United States Senate.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (JANUARY-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (February).
Indemnity for Jameson Raid claimed
by the South African Republic.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (February).
Loan for national defense.
Purchase of 60 square miles on Salisbury Plain.
A bill which authorized a loan of £5,458,000 for purposes of
national defense was passed rapidly through both Houses of
Parliament in February. It included an item of £450,000 for
the purchase of 40,000 acres (60 square miles) on Salisbury
Plain, for military manœuvres.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (February).
Punitive expedition against Benin.
See (in this volume)
NIGERIA: A. D. 1897.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (February-July).
Parliamentary investigation of the Jameson Raid.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (April).
Increase of armament in South Africa.
The Government accused of a war policy.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (May).
Treaty with Menelek of Abyssinia.
See (in this volume)
ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1897.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (May-June).
New cessions and concessions from China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (May-July).
The Workmen's Compensation Act.
A subject which had grown urgent, in England, for
parliamentary attention, was that of a better provision in law
for securing proper compensation to workmen for accidental
injuries suffered in the course of their employment. The
measure was not one that a Conservative government would be
likely, under ordinary circumstances, to take up; since the
class of large employers of labor, from which opposition to it
came, were mostly in the Conservative ranks. But the Liberal
Unionists, now in parliamentary coalition with the
Conservatives, were called upon to favor such a piece of
legislation by their creed, and rumor said that they bargained
for it with their political partners, in exchange for the
support they gave unwillingly to the Voluntary Schools Bill.
At all events, a bill which was first called the Employers'
Liability Bill, but finally named the Workmen's Compensation
Bill, was brought in to the House of Commons, by the
government, in May, and was carried, after much debate,
through both Houses in July. The essential provisions of the
Act as passed are the following:
"I.
(1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal
injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the
employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject
as herein-after mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in
accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.
{207}
(2.) Provided that:
(a.) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in
respect of any injury which does not disable the workman
for a period of at least two weeks from earning full wages
at the work at which he was employed;
(b.) When the injury was caused by the personal negligence
or wilful act of the employer, or of some person for whose
act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this
Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in
that case the workman may, at his option, either claim
compensation under this Act, or take the same proceedings as
were open to him before the commencement of this Act; but
the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation for
injury to a workman by accident arising out of and in the
course of the employment both independently of and also
under this Act, and shall not be liable to any proceedings
independently of this Act, except in case of such personal
negligence or wilful act as aforesaid;
(c.) If it is proved that the injury to a workman is
attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that
workman, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury
shall be disallowed.
(3.) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act
as to the liability to pay compensation under this Act
(including any question as to whether the employment is one to
which this Act applies), or as to the amount or duration of
compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by
agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the First
Schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance
with the Second Schedule to this Act. …
"2.
(1.)
Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation
for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the
accident has been given as soon as practicable after the
happening thereof and before the workman has voluntarily left
the employment in which he was injured, and unless the claim
for compensation with respect to such accident has been made
within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing
the injury, or, in case of death, within six months from the
time of death. …
"3.
(1.)
If the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after taking steps to
ascertain the views of the employer and workmen, certifies
that any scheme of compensation, benefit, or insurance for the
workmen of an employer in any employment, whether or not such
scheme includes other employers and their workmen, is on the
whole not less favourable to the general body of workmen and
their dependants than the provisions of this Act, the employer
may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of
those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be
substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the
employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme,
but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply notwithstanding
any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of
this Act. …
"7.
(1.)
This Act shall apply only to employment by the undertakers as
herein-after defined, on or in or about a railway, factory,
mine, quarry, or engineering work, and to employment by the
undertakers as herein-after defined on, in or about any
building which exceeds thirty feet in height, and is either
being constructed or repaired by means of a scaffolding, or
being demolished, or on which machinery driven by steam,
water, or other mechanical power, is being used for the
purpose of the construction, repair, or demolition thereof.
(2.)
In this Act— … 'Undertakers' in the case of a railway means
the railway company; in the case of a factory, quarry, or
laundry means the occupier thereof within the meaning of the
Factory and Workshop Acts, 1878 to 1895; in the case of a mine
means the owner thereof within the meaning of the Coal Mines
Regulation Act, 1887, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation
Act, 1872, as the case may be, and in the case of an
engineering work means the person undertaking the
construction, alteration, or repair; and in the case of a
building means the persons undertaking the construction,
repair, or demolition. … 'Workman' includes every person who
is engaged in an employment to which this Act applies, whether
by way of manual labour or otherwise, and whether his
agreement is one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise,
and is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing."
The "First Schedule" referred to in the first section of the
Act prescribes rules for determining compensation, those
principally important being as follows; "The amount of
compensation under this Act shall be—(a) where death results
from the injury—(i) if the workman leaves any dependants
wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, a
sum equal to his earnings in the employment of the same
employer during the three years next preceding the injury, or
the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, whichever of those
sums is the larger, but not exceeding in any case three
hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly
payments made under this Act shall be deducted from such sum,
and if the period of the workman's employment by the said
employer has been less than the said three years, then the
amount of his earnings during the said three years shall be
deemed to be 156 times his average weekly earnings during the
period of his actual employment under the said employer;
(ii)
if the workman does not leave any such dependants, but leaves
any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time
of his death, such sum, not exceeding in any case the amount
payable under the foregoing provisions, as may be agreed upon,
or, in default of agreement, may be determined, on arbitration
under this Act, to be reasonable and proportionate to the
injury to the said dependants; and
(iii)
if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable expenses of his
medical attendance and burial, not exceeding ten pounds; (b)
where total or partial incapacity for work results from the
injury, a weekly payment during the incapacity after the
second week not exceeding fifty per cent. of his average
weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has
been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period
during which he has been in the employment of the same
employer, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound."
60 & 61 Victoria, chapter 37.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (May-October).
Reassertion of suzerainty over the South African Republic.
Refusal of arbitration.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1897 (MAY-OCTOBER); and 1898-1899.
{208}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (June).
The "Diamond Jubilee" of Queen Victoria.
The sixtieth anniversary of the coronation of Queen Victoria
was celebrated in London on the 20th of June, by religious
services of great solemnity and impressiveness, and, two days
later, by pageants of extraordinary pomp and magnificence, in
which representatives of every people who acknowledge the
queen's supremacy bore a part. Numerous functions and
ceremonies followed, to many of which the aged sovereign was
able to lend her presence. At the end of all, on the 15th of
July, she addressed the following letter to the millions of
her subjects throughout the world: "I have frequently
expressed my personal feelings to my people, and though on
this memorable occasion there have been many official
expressions of my deep sense of the unbounded loyalty evinced
I cannot rest satisfied without personally giving utterance to
these sentiments. It is difficult for me on this occasion to
say how truly touched and grateful I am for the spontaneous
and universal outburst of loyal attachment and real affection
which I have experienced on the completion of the sixtieth
year of my reign. During my progress through London on the
22nd of June this great enthusiasm was shown in the most
striking manner, and can never be effaced from my heart. It is
indeed deeply gratifying, after so many years of labour and
anxiety for the good of my beloved country, to find that my
exertions have been appreciated throughout my vast empire. In
weal and woe I have ever had the true sympathy of all my
people, which has been warmly reciprocated by myself. It has
given me unbounded pleasure to see so many of my subjects from
all parts of the world assembled here, and to find them
joining in the acclamations of loyal devotion to myself, and I
would wish to thank them all from the depth of my grateful
heart. I shall ever pray God to bless them and to enable me
still to discharge my duties for their welfare as long as life
lasts.
VICTORIA, R. I."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (June-July).
Conference of colonial premiers with the Secretary of
State for the Colonies.
Discussion of important questions.
Denunciation of commercial treaties with Germany and Belgium.
"On Thursday, the 24th of June, the Prime Ministers of Canada,
New South Wales, Victoria, New Zealand, Queensland, Cape
Colony, South Australia, Newfoundland, Tasmania, Western
Australia, and Natal, assembled at the Colonial Office,
Downing Street, for the discussion of certain Imperial
questions with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was
decided that the proceedings should be informal and that the
general results only should be published. With the view of
giving a definite direction to the discussion, the Secretary
of State, in opening the proceedings, set forth the subjects
which he considered might usefully be discussed, so as to
secure an interchange of views upon them, and where they were
ripe for a statement of opinion, a definite resolution in
regard to them. [He did so in a speech of some length, after
which the several questions brought forward in his remarks
were discussed in succession at a series of meetings in the
Colonial Office.] The commercial relations of the United
Kingdom and the self-governing Colonies were first considered,
and the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:
1. That the Premiers of the self-governing Colonies
unanimously and earnestly recommend the denunciation, at the
earliest convenient time, of any treaties which now hamper the
commercial relations between Great Britain and her Colonies.
2. That in the hope of improving the trade relations between
the mother country and the Colonies, the Premiers present
undertake to confer with their colleagues with the view to
seeing whether such a result can be properly secured by a
preference given by the Colonies to the products of the United
Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government have already [July 31, 1897]
given effect to the first of these resolutions by formally
notifying to the Governments concerned their wish to terminate
the commercial treaties with Germany and Belgium, which alone
of the existing commercial treaties of the United Kingdom are
a bar to the establishment of preferential tariff relations
between the mother country and the Colonies. From and after
the 30th July 1898, therefore, there will be nothing in any of
Her Majesty's treaty obligations to preclude any action which any
of the Colonies may see fit to take in pursuance of the second
resolution. It is, however, right to point out that if any
Colony were to go farther and to grant preferential terms to
any Foreign Country, the provisions of the most favoured
nation clauses in many treaties between Her Majesty and other
powers, in which the Colonies are included, would necessitate
the concession of similar terms to those countries.
"On the question of the political relations between the mother
country and the self-governing Colonies, the resolutions
adopted were as follows:
1. The Prime Ministers here assembled are of opinion that the
present political relations between the United Kingdom and the
self-governing Colonies are generally satisfactory under the
existing condition of things. Mr. Seddon and Sir E. N. C.
Braddon dissented.
2. They are also of opinion that it is desirable, whenever and
wherever practicable, to group together under a federal union
those colonies which are geographically united. Carried
unanimously.
3. Meanwhile, the Premiers are of opinion that it would be
desirable to hold periodical conferences of representatives of
the Colonies and Great Britain for the discussion of matters
of common interest. Carried unanimously. Mr. Seddon and Sir E.
N. C. Braddon dissented from the first resolution because they
were of opinion that the time had already come when an effort
should be made to render more formal the political ties
between the United Kingdom and the Colonies. The majority of
the Premiers were not yet prepared to adopt this position, but
there was a strong feeling amongst some of them that with the
rapid growth of population in the Colonies, the present
relations could not continue indefinitely, and that some means
would have to be devised for giving the Colonies a voice in
the control and direction of those questions of Imperial
interest in which they are concerned equally with the mother
country. It was recognised at the same time that such a share
in the direction of Imperial policy would involve a
proportionate contribution in aid of Imperial expenditure, for
which at present, at any rate, the Colonies generally are not
prepared.
"On the question of Imperial defence, the various points
raised in the speech of the Secretary of State were fully
discussed;" but on this, and on some questions of minor
importance, no conclusions were definitely formulated.
Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command, C.-8596, 1897).
{209}
The following reference to the "denunciation" of the treaties
appeared in the "London Statist" of August 7, 1897: "Last week
the British Government gave notice to Germany and Belgium of
its intention to terminate the commercial treaties with those
countries at the end of July next year, at the same time
expressing its willingness to conclude fresh treaties. This
important step is a fitting sequel to the jubilee festivities.
It is a graceful recognition of the great loyalty displayed by
our colonies toward the mother country and prepares the way to
that closer union which this paper has strongly advocated. In
twelve months' time, therefore, we shall be free from our
embarrassing engagements not to permit our colonies to place
higher or other import duties on the produce of Germany and
Belgium than upon the produce of the United Kingdom. Our
colonies will thus have complete freedom to place what duties
they choose on any produce they care to purchase from the
United Kingdom or from any other country, and if they so
desire they may place discriminating duties on their own
exports. The action taken indicates no change in the policy of
this country, and foreign nations need have no fear that
British markets will be closed to their produce. It is quite
possible that at some future time, when the colonies have much
further developed their resources and the struggle for
existence becomes still keener, we may be disposed to give a
greater preference to colonial than to foreign produce, but
that period has not yet come. Of course, the time may be
greatly hastened by the attitude of foreign countries. The
unfriendliness of Germany last year caused a wave of feeling
in this country in favor of a duty upon German goods, and the
Canadian offer of preferential duties to the mother country
has created a responsive desire to assist Canadian trade.
Should our other colonies follow the lead of Canada, which,
from Mr. Chamberlain's statement, appears most likely, a
strong movement might arise for giving them preferential
treatment, especially if, at the same time, Germany, Belgium,
or anyone else were disposed to raise their duties on British
goods."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (July-October).
Discussion with American envoys of a bi-metallic agreement.
See (in this volume)
MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (August).
Report on condition and prospects of West India colonies,
and Parliamentary action.
See (in this volume)
WEST INDIES, THE BRITISH: A. D. 1897.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897-1898.
Campaigns on the Nile.
Anglo-Egyptian conquest of the Sudan.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1897-1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897-1898.
Insurrections and mutiny in Uganda.
See (in this volume)
UGANDA: A. D. 1897-1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897-1898 (June-April).
Wars on the Afghan frontier of India.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1897-1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897-1898 (July-January).
The great strike and lock-out in the engineering trades.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES:
A. D. 1897 (GREAT BRITAIN).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898.
Alleged treaty with Portugal.
See (in this volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898.
Results of British occupation of Egypt.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (February).
British troops fighting in eight regions of the world.
"We are a people of peaceful traders—shopkeepers, our rivals
of the Continent affirm—and are consequently at war on only
eight points of the globe, with forces which in the aggregate
only just exceed sixty thousand men. There are thirty-five
thousand on the Indian Frontier fighting the clansmen of the
Northern Himalayas, who, according to the Afridi sub-officers

interrogated by Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, are all eager to
enter our service; twenty-five thousand about to defeat the
Khalifa at Omdurman; a thousand doing sentry duty in Crete;
four hundred putting down an outbreak in Mekran; three hundred
crushing a mutiny in Uganda; and some hundreds more restoring
order in Lagos, Borneo, and Basutoland. All these troops,
though of different nationalities—Englishmen, Sikhs, Ghoorkas,
Rajpoots, Malays, Egyptians, Soudanese, Haussas, and Wagandas—
are under British officers, are paid from funds under British
control, and are engaged in the self-same work, that of
solidifying the 'Pax Britannica,' so that a commercial
civilisation may have a fair chance to grow."
The Spectator (London), February 5, 1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (February).
Resentment shown to China for rejection of a loan,
through Russian influence.
Chinese agreement not to alienate the Yang-tsze region
and to open internal waters to steam navigation.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (February-May).
Native revolt in the Sierra Leone Protectorate.
See (in this volume)
SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (March-April).
Unsuccessful opposition to Russian lease of Port Arthur
and Talienwan from China.
Compensatory British lease of Wei-hai Wei.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MARCH-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (April-August).
Further exactions from China.
Lease of territory opposite Hong Kong, etc.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (May).
Death of Mr. Gladstone.
After a long and painful illness, the great statesman and
leader of the Liberal party in England, William Ewart
Gladstone, died on the 19th of May. His death drew tributes in
Parliament from his political opponents which exalted him quite
to the height of great distinction that those who followed him
would claim. It was said by Lord Salisbury that "the most
distinguished political name of the century had been withdrawn
from the roll of Englishmen." Mr. Balfour described him as
"the greatest member of the greatest deliberative assembly
that the world had yet seen": and expressed the belief that
"they would never again have in that assembly any man who
could reproduce what Mr. Gladstone was to his contemporaries."
Lord Rosebery paid an eloquent tribute to the dead statesman.
"This country." he said, "this nation, loves brave men. Mr.
Gladstone was the bravest of the brave. There was no cause so
hopeless that he was afraid to undertake it; there was no
amount of opposition that would cowe him when once he had
undertaken it. My lords, Mr. Gladstone always expressed a hope
that there might be an interval left to him between the end of
his political and of his natural life. That period was given
to him, for it is more than four years since he quitted the
sphere of politics. Those four years have been with him a
special preparation for his death, but have they not also been
a preparation for his death with the nation at large?
{210}
Had he died in the plenitude of his power as Prime Minister,
would it have been possible for a vigorous and convinced
Opposition to allow to pass to him, without a word of dissent,
the honours which are now universally conceded? Hushed for the
moment are the voices of criticism, hushed are the controversies
in which he took part; hushed for the moment is the very sound
of party faction. I venture to think that this is a notable
fact in our history. It was not so with the elder Pitt. It was
not so with the younger Pitt. It was not so with the elder
Pitt, in spite of his tragic end, of his unrivalled services,
and of his enfeebled old age. It was not so with the younger
Pitt, in spite of his long control of the country and his
absolute and absorbed devotion to the State. I think that we
should remember this as creditable not merely to the man, but
to the nation." With the consent of Mrs. Gladstone and family,
a public funeral was voted by Parliament, and the remains of the
great leader were laid, with simple but impressive ceremonies,
in Westminster Abbey, on the 28th of May.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (June).
The Sugar Conference at Brussels.
See (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (July).
The Local Government Act for Ireland.
See (in this volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1898 (JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (July-December).
In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (September-November).-
The Nile question with France.
Marchand's expedition at Fashoda.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (December).
Imperial Penny Postage.
On Christmas Day, 1898, the Imperial penny postage came into
operation,—i. e., it became possible to send for a penny a
letter not above half an ounce in weight to all places in the
British Empire, except the Australasian Colonies and the Cape.
"Thousands of small orders and business transactions and
millions of questions and answers will fly round the world at
a penny which were too heavily weighted at two-pence
halfpenny. The political effect of the fact that it will not
now be necessary to think whether an address is outside the
United Kingdom, but only whether it is inside the British
Empire, will be by no means insignificant. If people will only
let the Empire alone we shall ultimately weave out of many
varied strands—some thick, some thin—a rope to join the
Motherland and the Daughter States which none will be able to
break. Not an unimportant thread in the hawser will
be,—letters for a penny wherever the Union Jack is flown."
The Spectator (London),
December 31, 1898.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898-1899.
Joint High Commission for settlement of pending questions
between the United States and Canada.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1898-1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898-1899 (June-June).
Convention with France defining West African and
Sudan possessions.
See (in this volume)
NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899.
Dealings with anti-missionary demonstrations in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (January).
Agreement with Egypt, establishing the Anglo-Egyptian
Condominium in the Sudan.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (March-April).
Agreement with Russia concerning railway interests in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899 (MARCH-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (May-June).
The Bloemfontein Conference with President Kruger.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1899 (MAY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (June-October).
Arbitration and settlement of the Venezuela boundary question.
See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (July).
Passage of the London Government Act.
See (in this volume)
LONDON: A. D. 1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (July-September).
Discussion of proposed amendments to the Franchise Law
of the South African Republic.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1899 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (August).
The Board of Education Act.
An Act of Parliament which became law on the 9th of August,
1899, and operative on the 1st of April, 1900, created a
national Board of Education, "charged with the superintendence
of matters relating to education in England and Wales," and
taking the place of the Committee of the Privy Council on
Education, by which that function had previously been
performed. The Act provided that the Board "shall consist of a
President, and of the Lord President of the Council (unless he
is appointed President of the Board), Her Majesty's Principal
Secretaries of State, the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury, and the Chancellor of Her Majesty's Exchequer. … The
President of the Board shall be appointed by Her Majesty, and
shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure." The Act
provided further for the creation by Her Majesty in Council of
"a Consultative Committee consisting, as to not less than
two-thirds, of persons qualified to represent the views of
Universities and other bodies interested in education, for the
purpose of—(a) framing, with the approval of the Board of
Education, regulations for a register of teachers, … with an
entry in respect to each teacher showing the date of his
registration, and giving a brief record of his qualifications
and experience; and (b) advising the Board of Education on any
matter referred to the committee by the Board."
62 & 63 Victoria, chapter 33.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (August).
Instructions to the Governor of Jamaica.
See (in this volume) JAMAICA: A. D. 1899.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (September-October).
Preparations for war in South Africa.
The Boer Ultimatum.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE FREE STATE):
A. D. 1899 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (October-November).
Opening circumstances of the war in South Africa.
Want of preparation.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (November).
Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial
policy in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).
{211}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (November).
Withdrawal from the Samoan Islands, with compensations in the
Tonga and Solomon Islands and in Africa.
See (in this volume)
SAMOAN ISLANDS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1900.
Renewed investigation of the Old-Age Pension question.
On the initiative of the government, a fresh investigation of
the question of old-age pensions was opened in 1899 by a
select committee of the House of Commons, under the
chairmanship of Mr. Chaplin. The report of the Committee, made
in the following year, suggested the following plan: Any
person, aged 65, whether man or woman, who satisfied the
pension authority that he or she"
(1) Is a British subject;
(2) Is 65 years of age;
(3) Has not within the last 20 years been convicted of an
offence and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment
without the option of a fine;
(4) Has not received poor relief, other than medical relief,
unless under circumstances of a wholly exceptional character,
during twenty years prior to the application for a pension;
(5) Is resident within the district of the pension authority;
(6) Has not an income from any source of more than 10s. a
week; and
(7) Has endeavoured to the best of his ability, by his
industry or by the exercise of reasonable providence, to make
provision for himself and those immediately dependent on
him—"should receive a certificate to that effect and be
entitled to a pension. The amount of pension to be from 5s. to
7s. a week.
As a means of ascertaining approximately the number of persons
in the United Kingdom who would be pensionable under this
scheme, a test census was taken in certain districts made as
representative as possible by the inclusion of various kinds
of population. In each of the selected areas in Great Britain
a house-to-house visitation was made with a view of
ascertaining how many of the aged would satisfy the conditions
of the scheme. In Ireland a similar census had to be abandoned
as impracticable because "the officials, although they
proceeded courteously, were received with abuse"; but the Poor
Law inspectors framed some rough estimates after consultation
with local authorities. Altogether the inquiry in Great
Britain extended to a population of rather over half a million
persons. From facts thus obtained the following estimate of
the cost of the proposed pensioning project was deduced:
Estimated number of persons
over 65 years of age in 1901 2,016,000
Deduct:
1. For those whose incomes exceed 10s. a week 741,000
2. For paupers 515,000
3. For aliens, criminals, and lunatics 32,000
4. For inability to comply with thrift test 72,700
Total deductions 1,360,700
Estimated number of pensionable persons 655,000
Estimated cost (the average pension being
taken at 6s. a week) £9,976,000
Add administrative expenses (3 per cent.) £299,000
Total estimated cost. £10,275,000
In round figures. £10,300,000

The Committee estimated, still further, that the cost would
rise to £15,650,000 by 1921. No legislative action was taken
on the report.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1900 (October-January).
Troops from Canada for the South African War.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1899-1900.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.
The Newfoundland French Shore question.
See (in this volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900.
Industrial combinations.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: IN ENGLAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900.
Naval strength.
See (in this volume)
NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (January-March).
The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (February).
Compulsory education.
A bill introduced in Parliament by a private member,
unsupported by the government, providing that the earliest
date at which a child should be permitted to leave school
should be raised from 11 to 12 years, was passed, only one
member of the Cabinet voting for it.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (February).
Negotiation of a convention with the United States relative
to the projected Interoceanic Canal.
See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (March).
Overtures of peace from the Boer Presidents.
Reply of Lord Salisbury.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1900 (MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (May).
Annexation of Orange Free State by right of conquest.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE): A. D. 1900 (MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (June-December).
Co-operation with the Powers in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (July).
Passage of the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act,"
federating the Australian Colonies.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1900;
and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (September).
Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1900 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (September-October).
Dissolution of Parliament.
Election of a new Parliament.
Victory for the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists.
By royal proclamation, September 17, the existing Parliament
was dissolved and order given for the issue of writs calling a
new Parliament, the elections for which were held in October,
concluding on the 24th of that month. The state of parties in
the House of Commons resulting from the election was as
follows: Conservatives, 334, Liberal Unionists, 68; total
supporters of the Unionist Ministry, 402. Liberals and Labor
members, 186, Nationalists (Irish), 82; total opposition, 268.
Unionist majority, 134, against 128 in the preceding
Parliament. The issues in the election were those growing out
of the South African War. Although most of the Liberals upheld
the war, and the annexation of the South African republics,
they sharply criticised the prior dealings of the Colonial
Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, with the Transvaal Boers, and the
general conduct of the war. A number of the leading Liberals
were uncompromising in condemnation of the war, of the policy
which caused it, and of the proposed extinction of Boer
independence. The sentiment of the country was shown by the
election to be strongly against all questioning of the
righteousness of the war or of the use to be made of victory
in it.
{212}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (October).
Anglo-German agreement concerning policy in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (October).
Annexation of the Transvaal.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (November-December).
The Fourth Ministry of Lord Salisbury.
Brief session of Parliament.
For the fourth time, Lord Salisbury was called to the lead in
government, and formed his Ministry anew, making considerable
changes. He relieved himself of the conduct of Foreign Affairs
(which was transferred to the Marquis of Lansdowne), and took,
with the office of Prime Minister, that of Lord Privy Seal. Mr.
Brodrick, who had been an Under Secretary, succeeded Lord
Lansdowne as Secretary of State for War. Mr. Balfour continued
to be First Lord of the Treasury, and Leader of the House; Mr.
Chamberlain remained in the Colonial Office. Mr. Goschen
retired.
Parliament met on the 6th of December, for the purpose set
forth in a remarkably brief "Queen's Speech," as follows: "My
Lords, and Gentlemen, It has become necessary to make further
provision for the expenses incurred by the operations of my
armies in South Africa and China. I have summoned you to hold
a Special Session in order that you may give your sanction to
the enactments required for this purpose. I will not enter
upon other public matters requiring your attention until the
ordinary meeting of Parliament in the spring." The estimates
of the War Office called for £16,000,000, and it was voted
after a few days of debate, in which the causes and conduct of
the war were criticised and defended by the two parties, and,
on the 15th, Parliament was prorogued to the 14th of February,
1901, by the Queen's command.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (December).
Fall of stones at Stonehenge.
See (in this volume)
STONEHENGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (December).
Parliamentary statements of the number of men employed in the
South African War, and the number dead and disabled.
In the House of Commons, December 11, Mr. Brodrick, Secretary
of State for War, moved a vote of £16,000,000, required for
the current year, to meet additional expenditure in South
Africa and China. In the course of his remarks, explanatory of
the need for this supplementary supply, he made the following
statement: "When the war broke out we had in South Africa in
round figures 10,000 men, all Regular troops. We have in the
14 months' which have since elapsed sent from this country and
landed in South Africa 175,000 Regular soldiers, a number which
exceeds by far any number which any Minister from this bench
or any gentleman sitting behind these benches or in front of
them ever suggested that this country ought to be in a
position to ship to any part of the world, and a number far in
excess of that which during any period that I have sat in the
house any member of the House, except an official, would have
been willing to believe that the War Office could find to
dispose of. But they are not the only troops. We have called
on them, I will not say to the extreme limit of our power,
but, at all events, with an unsparing hand. But you have in
addition, as this return will show, some 40,000 Volunteers of
various descriptions from the United Kingdom—40,000 including
the Imperial Yeomanry, whose service is spoken of by every
officer under whom they have served with such satisfaction; 30
Militia regiments, who are also Volunteers, since their term
of service was only for the United Kingdom and who have gone
abroad at great personal sacrifice to themselves; and the
volunteer companies who have joined the Regular battalions.
You have also got 40,000 colonial troops, to a large extent,
no doubt, men raised in the colonies affected, and as
everybody knows to a still larger extent consisting of men who
have gone for a year from Australia, Canada, and other
places."
Sir William Harcourt replied to Mr. Brodrick, not in
opposition to the motion, but in criticism of the conduct of
the war. Referring to a return submitted by the War Office, he
analyzed its showing of facts, thus: "Now just let us look at
this table. By some accident it only gives the rank and file
and non-commissioned officers. It is a very terrible return,
and I think it is worthy of the attention of the men who
delight in war, of whom, I am afraid, there are unhappily not
a few. I have made a short analysis of the paper. It shows
that the garrison at the Cape before the war was 9,600.
Reinforcements of 6,300 men were sent out in October last year
and from India 5,600, which with the former garrison made up
21,000 in all when the war broke out. Up to August, that is,
after the last estimate for 1900, according to this table
267,000 men had been in arms in South Africa—that is without
the officers. Therefore I will call it 270,000 men in round
numbers. I think the right honourable gentleman made a mistake
when he said that the colonial troops were more numerous from
beyond the seas than they were in the Cape. This return shows
that the men raised in South Africa were 30,000, and, apart
from them, the colonials from beyond the seas were 11,000.
According to the last return there were 210,000 men in South
Africa. You will observe there is a balance of some 60,000 or
70,000 men. What has become of those men? You would find from
this return, one would suppose, that a good many of these have
returned safe and sound to England. No, Sir; the men who have
returned to England according to this paper, not invalids, are
7,500 and to the colonies 3,000 more. That makes 10,000 men,
or with the officers about 11,000 men. But since July you have
sent out 13,000 men to South Africa, more, in fact, than you
have been bringing home, and yet you have only 210,000 men
there. Now, Sir, how is this accounted for? First of all you
have the heading, 'killed or died of wounds,' 11,000 men. You
have 'wounded,' 13,000, you have 'in hospital in South
Africa,' 12,000, and you have 'returned to England, sick,
wounded, or died on passage,' 36,000 men. That is the balance.
Seventy thousand men have been killed, wounded, or disabled,
or have died in this war. And now what is the prospect that is
held before us with this force, once 270,000 men, and now
210,000, in South Africa? Lord Roberts has declared that the
war is over, yet you hold out to us no prospect of diminishing
the force you have in South Africa of 210,000 men."
{213}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (January).
Death of Queen Victoria.
The following notice, which appeared in the "Court Circular,"
on the 18th of January, dated from the winter residence of the
Queen at Osborne House, in the Isle of Wight, seems to have
been the first intimation to the country of its sovereign's
failing health: "The Queen has not lately been in her usual
health and is unable for the present to take her customary
drives. The Queen during the past year has had a great strain
upon her powers, which has rather told upon her Majesty's
nervous system. It has, therefore, been thought advisable by
her Majesty's physicians that the Queen should be kept
perfectly quiet in the house and should abstain for the
present from transacting business." It was subsequently found,
as stated in an "authoritative account" by the "British
Medical Journal," and the "Lancet," that "the Queen's health
for the past 12 months had been failing, with symptoms mainly
of a dyspeptic kind, accompanied by impaired general
nutrition, periods of insomnia, and later by occasional slight
and transitory attacks of aphasia, the latter suggesting that
the cerebral vessels had become damaged, although her
Majesty's general arterial system showed remarkably few signs
of age. … The dyspepsia which tended to lower her Majesty's
original robust constitution was especially marked during her
last visit to Balmoral. It was there that the Queen first
manifested distinct symptoms of brain fatigue and lost notably
in weight. These symptoms continued at Windsor, where in November
and December, 1900, slight aphasic symptoms were first
observed, always of an ephemeral kind, and unattended by any
motor paralysis. … A few days before the final illness
transient but recurring symptoms of apathy and somnolence,
with aphasic indications and increasing feebleness, gave great
uneasiness to her physician." Before the publication of the
cautious announcement quoted above, the symptoms had become
too grave to leave any doubt as to the near approach of death.
It came on Tuesday, the 22d of January, at half past six
o'clock in the evening, the dying Queen being then surrounded
by a large number of her many children, grandchildren and
great grandchildren, whom she recognized, it is said, within a
few moments of the end. The eldest of the Queen's children,
the Empress Frederick, was kept from her mother's side a this
last hour by serious illness of her own; but the Emperor
William, of Germany (son of the Empress Frederick and eldest
grandson of Queen Victoria) had hastened to the scene and
showed a filial affection which touched English hearts.
On Friday, the first day of February, the remains of the Queen
were borne from the island where she died to Portsmouth, between
long lines of battle-ships and cruisers—British, German,
French, Italian, Japanese, Belgian and Portuguese. The scene
of the funeral voyage was impressively described by a
correspondent of the New York "Sun," as follows: "Nature was
never kindlier. The smiling waters of the Solent were as calm
as on a summer's morning. It was 'Queen's weather' to the very
last. The cavalcade which wended slowly through the narrow
lane, green even in midwinter, down through the streets of the
little town of Cowes to the Trinity pier was a funeral
procession such as the world had never seen before. Kings and
princes, a Queen and princesses, walked humbly between black
lines of mourning islanders, escorting the coffin of the dead
sovereign. Then followed a sight far more notable and more
impressive, indeed, than the great tribute the great capital
of the empire will pay to-morrow. It was the transit of the
funeral yacht across the waters between lines of steel which
are England's bulwarks against the world. Battleship after
battleship thundered its grief, band after band wailed its
dirge and crew after crew bowed low their heads as the pigmy
yacht swept past, bearing no passengers save an admiral on the
bridge and four red-coated guards at the corners of the
simple, glowing white bier resting amidships. It was a picture
neither a painter's brush nor an orator's eloquence could
reproduce. … The boat slowly glided on in the mellow light of
the afternoon sun, herself almost golden in hue, sharply
contrasting with the black warships. The ears also were
assailed in strange contrast, the sad strains of Beethoven's
funeral march floating over the water being punctuated by the
roar of minute guns from each ship. Somehow it was not
incongruous and one felt that it was all a great and majestic
tribute to a reign which was an era and to a sovereign to whom
the world pays its highest honors."
On the following day the remains were conveyed by railway from
Portsmouth to London, carried in solemn procession through the
streets of the capital, and thence by railway to Windsor,
where the last rites were performed on Monday, the 4th. The
Queen was then laid to rest, by the side of her husband, in
the mausoleum which she had built at Frogmore.
Of the sincerity with which Queen Victoria had been loved by
her own people and respected and admired by the world at
large, and of the genuineness of sorrow that was manifested
everywhere at her death, there can be no doubt. To the
impressiveness of the ending of an unexampled period of
history there was added a true sense of loss, from the
disappearance of a greatly important personage, whose high
example had been pure and whose large influence had been good.
Among all the tributes to the Queen that were called out by
her death none seem so significant and so fully drawn from
knowledge of what she was in her regal character, as the words
that were spoken by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, at
the meeting of Parliament on the Friday following her death.
"My lords." he said, "the late Queen had so many titles to our
admiration that it would occupy an enormous time to glance at
them even perfunctorily; but that on which I think your
lordships should most reflect, and which will chiefly attach
to her character in history, is that, being a constitutional
monarch with restricted powers, she reigned by sheer force of
character, by the lovableness of her disposition, over the
hearts of her subjects, and exercised an influence in moulding
their character and destiny which she could not have done more
if she had bad the most despotic power. She has been a great
instance of government by example, by esteem, by love; and it
will never be forgotten how much she has done for the
elevation of her people, not by the exercise of any
prerogative, not by the giving of any commands, but by the
simple recognition and contemplation of the brilliant
qualities which she has exhibited in her exalted position. My
lords, it may be, perhaps, proper that those who, like noble
lords opposite and myself, have had the opportunity of seeing
the close workings of her character in the discharge of her
duties as Sovereign, should take this opportunity of
testifying to the great admiration she inspired and the great
force which her distinguishing characteristics exercised over
all who came near her.
{214}
The position of a Constitutional Sovereign is not an easy one.
Duties have to be reconciled which sometimes seem far apart.
Much has to be accepted which it may not be always pleasant to
accept; but she showed a wonderful power, on the one hand, of
observing with the most absolute strictness, the limits of her
action which the Constitution draws, and, on the other hand, of
maintaining a steady and persistent influence on the action of
her Ministers in the course of legislation and government
which no one could mistake. She was able to accept some things
of which, perhaps, she did not entirely approve, but which she
thought it her duty in her position to accept.
"She always maintained and practised a rigorous supervision
over public affairs, giving to her Ministers her frank advice
and warning them of danger if she saw there was danger ahead;
and she certainly impressed many of us with a profound sense
of the penetration, almost intuition, with which she saw the
perils with which we might be threatened in any course it was
thought expedient to adopt. She left upon my mind, she left
upon our minds, the conviction that it was always a dangerous
matter to press on her any course of the expediency of which
she was not thoroughly convinced; and I may say with
confidence that no Minister in her long reign ever disregarded
her advice, or pressed her to disregard it, without afterwards
feeling that he had incurred a dangerous responsibility. She
had an extraordinary knowledge of what her people would think.
I have said for years that I always thought that when I knew
what the Queen thought I knew certainly what view her subjects
would take, and especially the middle classes of her subjects.
Such was the extraordinary penetration of her mind. Yet she
never adhered to her own conceptions obstinately. On the
contrary, she was full of concession and consideration; and
she spared no effort—I might almost say she shrank from no
sacrifice—to make the task of conducting this difficult
Government more easy to her advisers than it would otherwise
have been. My lords, I feel sure that the testimony I have
borne will be abundantly sustained by all those who have been
called to serve her.
"We owe her gratitude in every direction—for her influence in
elevating the people, for her power with foreign Courts and
Sovereigns to remove difficulties and misapprehension which
sometimes might have been dangerous; but, above all things, I
think, we owe her gratitude for this, that by a happy
dispensation her reign has coincided with that great change
which has come over the political structure of this country
and the political instincts of its people. She has bridged
over that great interval which separates old England from new
England. Other nations may have had to pass through similar
trials, but have seldom passed through them so peaceably, so
easily, and with so much prosperity and success as we have. I
think that future historians will look to the Queen's reign as
the boundary which separates the two states of England—England
which has changed so much—and recognize that we have undergone
the change with constant increase of public prosperity,
without any friction to endanger the peace or stability of our
civil life, and at the same time with a constant expansion of
an Empire which every year grows more and more powerful. We
owe all these blessings to the tact, the wisdom, the
passionate patriotism, and the incomparable judgment of the
Sovereign whom we deplore." [sic]
In the House of Commons, on the same day, Mr. Balfour, the
leader of the House, spoke with fine feeling, partly as
follows: "The reign of Queen Victoria is no mere chronological
landmark. It is no mere convenient division of time, useful
for the historian or the chronicler. No, Sir, we feel as we do
feel for our great loss because we intimately associate the
personality of Queen Victoria with the great succession of
events which have filled her reign and with the development of
the Empire over which she ruled. And, associating her
personality with those events, surely we do well. In my
judgment, the importance of the Crown in our Constitution is
not a diminishing, but an increasing, factor. It is
increasing, and must increase, with the growth and development
of those free, self-governing communities, those new
commonwealths beyond the sea, who are bound to us by the
person of the Sovereign, who is the living symbol of the unity
of the Empire. But, Sir, it is not given, it cannot, in
ordinary course, be given, to a Constitutional Monarch to
signalize his reign by any great isolated action. The effect
of a Constitutional Sovereign, great as it is, is produced by
the slow, constant, and cumulative results of a great ideal
and a great example; and of that great ideal and that great
example Queen Victoria surely was the first of all
Constitutional Monarchs whom the world has yet seen. Where
shall we find that ideal so lofty in itself, so constantly and
consistently maintained, through two generations, through more
than two generations, of her subjects, through many
generations of her public men and members of this House?

Descendants of Queen Victoria.
"Sir, it would be almost impertinent for me were I to attempt
to express to the House in words the effect which the
character of our late Sovereign produced upon all who were in
any degree, however remote, brought in contact with her. The
simple dignity, befitting a Monarch of this realm, in that she
could never fail, because it arose from her inherent sense of
the fitness of things. It was no trapping put on for office,
and therefore it was that this dignity, this Queenly dignity,
only served to throw into stronger relief and into a brighter
light those admirable virtues of the wife, the mother, and the
woman with which she was so richly endowed. Those kindly
graces, those admirable qualities, have endeared her to every
class in the community, and are known to all. Perhaps less
known was the life of continuous labour which her position as
Queen threw upon her. Short as was the interval between the
last trembling signature affixed to a public document and
final rest, it was yet long enough to clog and hamper the
wheels of administration; and I remember when I saw a vast
mass of untouched documents which awaited the hand of the
Sovereign of this country to deal with it was brought vividly
before my mind how admirable was the unostentatious patience
with which for 63 years, through sorrow, through suffering, in
moments of weariness, in moments of despondency, it may be,
she carried on without intermission her share in the
government of this great Empire.
{216}
For her there was no holiday, to her there was no intermission
of toil. Domestic sorrow, domestic sickness, made no difference
in her labours, and they were continued from the hour at which
she became our Sovereign to within a very few days of her
death. It is easy to chronicle the growth of Empire, the
progress of trade, the triumphs of war, all the events that
make history interesting or exciting; but who is there that
will dare to weigh in the balance the effect which such an
example continued over 63 years has produced on the highest
life of the people? It is a great life, and had a fortunate,
and, let me say, in my judgment, a happy ending."
The especial and peculiar importance which Queen Victoria had
acquired in the political world, and the weight in its
councils which England owed to her personality, were
impressively suggested by Lord Rosebery, in a speech which he
made at a special court of the Governors of the Corporation of
the Royal Scottish Hospital, when he said: "We hear much in
these days of the life of the Queen and of what we owe her.
But I sometimes wonder if we all realize how much we do owe
her, for you would have had to know much about the Queen to
realize adequately the debt which the nation was under to her.
Probably every subject in Great Britain realizes that he has
lost his greatest and his best friend. But they do not
understand of what enormous weight in the councils of the
world we are deprived by the death of our late Sovereign. She
gave to the councils of Great Britain an advantage which no
talents, no brilliancy, no genius, could supply. Think of what
her reign was! She had reigned for 63 years. For 63 years she
had known all that was to be known about the political
condition of her country. For 63 years she had been in
communication with every important Minister and with every
important public man. She had received reports, daily reports
almost, from her successive Ministers, or their deputies in
the House of Commons. She had, therefore, a fund of knowledge
which no constitutional historian has ever had at his command.
That by the stroke of death is lost to us to-day. All that was of
incalculable advantage to our Monarchy. But have you realized
what the personal weight of the late Queen was in the councils
of the world? She was by far the senior of all the European
Sovereigns. She was, it is no disparagement to other Kings to
say, the chief of all the European Sovereigns. The German
Emperor was her grandson by birth. The Emperor of Russia was
her grandson by marriage. She had reigned 11 years when the
Emperor of Austria came to his throne. She had seen two
dynasties pass from the throne of France. She had seen, as
Queen, three Monarchs of Spain, and four Sovereigns of the
House of Savoy in Italy. In all those kingdoms which have been
carved out of the Turkish Empire she had seen the foundation
of their reigning dynasties. Can we not realize, then, what a
force the personal influence of such a Sovereign was in the
troubled councils of Europe? And when, as we know, that
influence was always given for peace, for freedom, and for
good government, we feel that not merely ourselves but all the
world has lost one of its best friends."
A statement in the "London Times" of January 26 shows the
descendants of Queen Victoria to be in number as follows: "The
Queen has had
9 children of whom 6 survive
40 grandchildren of whom 31 survive
37 great-grandchildren of whom 37 survive
[A total of] 86 [of whom] 74 [survive].
"Of the great-grandchildren 22 are boys and 15 are girls; 6
are grandchildren of the Prince of Wales; 18 are grandchildren
of the Empress Frederick; 11 are grandchildren of the late
Princess Alice; 6 are grandchildren of the late Duke of
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. This would appear to make a total of
41, but three of them are grandchildren of both the Empress
Frederick and Princess Alice, while one is grandchild of both
the Princess Alice and the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
"It will be seen that in the course of nature the future
rulers of Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Greece, and Rumania
will be descendants of her Majesty."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (January-February).
Ceremonies of the accession of King Edward VII.
His speech in Council and his messages to the people
of the British Empire.
On Wednesday, the 23d of January—the day following the death
of the Queen—her eldest son, Albert Edward, long known as
Prince of Wales, went from Osborne to London to take up the
sceptre of sovereignty which his mother had laid down. The
proceedings in Council which took place thereupon were
officially reported in the "London Gazette" as follows:
"At the Court at Saint James's, the 23rd day of January, 1901.
Present,
"The King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. His Majesty
being this day present in Council was pleased to make the
following Declaration:
"'Your Royal Highnesses, My Lords, and Gentlemen, This is the
most painful occasion on which I shall ever be called upon to
address you. My first and melancholy duty is to announce to
you the death of My beloved Mother the Queen, and I know how
deeply you, the whole Nation, and I think I may say the whole
world, sympathize with Me in the irreparable loss we have all
sustained. I need hardly say that My constant endeavour will
be always to walk in Her footsteps. In undertaking the heavy
load which now devolves upon life, I am fully determined to be
a Constitutional Sovereign in the strictest sense of the word,
and as long as there is breath in My body to work for the good
and amelioration of My people.
"'I have resolved to be known by the name of Edward, which has
been borne by six of My ancestors. In doing so I do not
undervalue the name of Albert, which I inherit from My ever to
be lamented, great and wise Father, who by universal consent is I
think deservedly known by the name of Albert the Good, and I
desire that his name should stand alone.
"'In conclusion, I trust to Parliament and the Nation to
support Me in the arduous duties which now devolve upon Me by
inheritance, and to which I am determined to devote My whole
strength during the remainder of My life.'
"Whereupon the Lords of the Council made it their humble
request to His Majesty that His Majesty's Most Gracious
Declaration to their Lordships' might be made public, which
His Majesty was pleased to Order accordingly."
{217}
The King then "caused all the Lords and others of the late
Queen's Privy Council, who were then present, to be sworn of
His Majesty's Privy Council." Orders had been previously given
for proclaiming "His present Majesty," in the following form:
"Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy Our
late Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, of Blessed and Glorious
Memory, by whose Decease the Imperial Crown of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is solely and rightfully
come to the High and Mighty Prince Albert Edward: We,
therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm,
being here assisted with these of Her late Majesty's Privy
Council, with Numbers of other Principal Gentlemen of Quality,
with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, do now
hereby, with one Voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart,
publish and proclaim, That the High and Mighty Prince, Albert
Edward, is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of Happy
Memory, become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord Edward
the Seventh, by the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Emperor
of India: To whom we do acknowledge all Faith and constant
Obedience, with all hearty and humble Affection; beseeching
God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal
Prince Edward the Seventh, with long and happy Years to reign
over Us."
The proclamation was made in London, with antique and
picturesque ceremony on the succeeding day, January 24, and
the following official report of it, from "Earl Marshal's
Office," published in the "London Gazette":
"This day His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII. was, in
pursuance of an Order in Council of the 23rd instant,
proclaimed with the usual ceremonies. At 9 o'clock in the
forenoon, the Officers of Arms habited in their tabards, the
Serjeants-at-Arms, with their maces and collars; and
Deputy-Serjeant Trumpeter in his collar; the Trumpeters, Drum
Major, and Knight Marshalmen being assembled at St James's
Palace, the Proclamation was read in the Grand Court by
William H. Weldon, Esq., Norroy King of Arms, Deputy to Sir
Albert W. Woods, Garter Principal King of Arms, in the
presence of the Earl Marshal of England, the Lord Steward, the
Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, and many other Members
of Her late Majesty's Household, with Lords and others of the
Privy Council and several personages of distinction. Deputy
Garter read the Proclamation. Then the Officers of Arms having
entered Royal Carriages, a procession was formed in the
following order:
The High Bailiff of Westminster, in his carriage.
Horse Guards.
Trumpeters.
A Royal Carriage containing The four Serjeants-at-Arms,
bearing their maces.
A Royal Carriage containing Pursuivants.
Rouge Dragon: Everard Green.
Bluemantle: G. Ambrose Lee.
Rouge Croix: G. W. Marshall.
Heralds.
Windsor: W. A. Lindsay, Esq.
York: A. S. Scott-Gatty, Esq.
Somerset: H. Farnham Burke, Esq., in a Royal Carriage.
A Detachment of Horse Guards.
"The Procession, flanked by the Horse Guards, moved from St.
James's Palace to Temple Bar, and Rouge Dragon Pursuivant of
Arms, alighting from the carriage, advanced between two
trumpeters, preceded by two of the Horse Guards, to the
barrier, and after the trumpets had sounded thrice, demanded
in the usual form admission into the City to proclaim His
Royal Majesty King Edward VII.; and being admitted, and the
barrier again closed, Rouge Dragon was conducted by the City
Marshal and his Officers to the Lord Mayor, who was in
attendance in his State Carriage, when Rouge Dragon delivered
to his Lordship the Order in Council, which the Lord Mayor,
having read, returned, and directed the barrier to be opened;
and Rouge Dragon being reconducted to his place in the
Procession it then moved into the City; the High Bailiff of
Westminster filing off at Temple Bar.
"At the corner of Chancery-lane York Herald read the
Proclamation; then the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, Recorder,
Sheriffs, Chamberlain, Common Serjeant, Town Clerk, and City
Officers fell into the procession immediately after the
Officers of Arms, and the procession moved on to the Royal
Exchange, where it was lastly read by Somerset Herald, when
the guns in St. James's Park and at the Tower of London were
fired. A multitude of spectators filled the streets through
which the procession passed, the windows of which were
crowded; and the acclamations were loud and general."
As described more fully by the "London Times," the interesting
proceeding, according to ancient custom, at Temple Bar—the
site of the old city gate—was as follows: "Temple Bar has
passed away, but not so the privileges associated with it,
although they have ceased to have more than an historical,
ceremonial, and picturesque interest. In accordance,
therefore, with ancient custom, the Lord Mayor yesterday
proceeded in State to the site of Temple Bar to grant entrance
to the King's Officer of Arms, who was about to proclaim his
Majesty King within the City. The gates of Temple Bar were
formerly closed for a short time before this ceremony, to be
opened, upon demand of the Officer of Arms, by the direction
of the Lord Mayor. As there are now no gates, a barrier was
made for the occasion by the holding of a red silken rope
across the street on either side of the Griffin which
commemorates the spot upon which Temple Bar formerly stood. A
strong force of burly constables was entrusted with this duty,
and the barrier thus created answered every practical purpose,
although there must have been lingering in the minds of some
of the venerable City Fathers some little regret that stern
necessity had occasioned the removal of the historic landmark
which stood there when Queen Victoria was proclaimed and
remained for many a long year afterwards, one of the most
interesting features of the ancient City.
{218}
"The Pursuivant (Rouge Dragon), the heralds, the officials of
Westminster, and the cavalcade halted a short distance to the
west of the barrier, and the Pursuivant then advanced between
two trumpeters, and the trumpets sounded thrice. Upon this the
City Marshal, on horseback, in scarlet tunic and cocked hat
with plumes, advanced to the barrier to meet the Pursuivant,
and in a loud voice, which could be heard by those at a
considerable distance, asked, 'Who comes there?' The
Pursuivant replied, 'The Officer of Arms, who demands entrance
into the City to proclaim his Royal Majesty, Edward the
Seventh.' Thereupon the barrier was opened so as to admit the
Pursuivant without escort, and immediately closed again. The
Pursuivant was then conducted by the City Marshal to the Lord
Mayor, who, being made acquainted with the object of the
Pursuivant's visit, directed the opening of the barrier, and
the Pursuivant returned to his cavalcade. There was a fanfare
of trumpets, and York Herald, Mr. A. S. Scott-Gatty, between
two trumpeters, approached the Lord Mayor, and presented to
his lordship the Order in Council requiring him to proclaim
his Majesty. The Lord Mayor replied:
'I am aware of the contents of this paper, having been
apprised yesterday of the ceremony appointed to take place,
and I have attended to perform my duty in accordance with
ancient usages and customs of the City of London.'
"The Lord Mayor then read aloud the Order in Council requiring
the herald to proclaim his Majesty within the jurisdiction of
the City, and returned it to the herald. … The trumpets
sounded and, the officials of Westminster having filed off,
the cavalcade advanced into the City as far as the corner of
Chancery-lane. There was another fanfare of trumpets, and the
herald then made the proclamation, reading it with admirable
clearness. When it was over the spectators, who had listened
with bared heads, cried 'God Save the King.' The trumpets were
again sounded, and a military band stationed to the west of
Temple Bar played the National Anthem. This was followed by
cheering, which lasted while the Lord Mayor and his retinue
resumed their places in the carriages which had brought them,
and the procession made its way to the Royal Exchange, the
route being down Fleet-street, up Ludgate-hill, through St.
Paul's Churchyard, and along Cheapside.
"Thus ended a ceremony which impressed all who saw it by its
solemnity, its dignity, and its significance. It brought home
vividly to the mind of every spectator the continuity which
exists amid all the changes of our national life, and the very
strangeness of the quaint heraldic garb worn by the heralds
and pursuivants, which at another time might have provoked a
smile, was felt to be an object-lesson for all, telling of
unbroken tradition reaching far back into the glorious history
of our country. On turning away from the site of Temple Bar
after the Proclamation had been made and the procession had
disappeared, one felt that the seriousness of the occasion had
impressed itself on every mind and that from every heart there
rose a common prayer—God Save the King!"
With somewhat less ceremony, on the same day, the same
proclamation was read in many parts of the United Kingdom.
On Friday, the 25th, both Houses of Parliament met (the
members having, one by one, taken the oath of allegiance to
the new sovereign on the two preceding days) to receive a
message from the King and to adopt an address in reply. The
royal message was as follows: "The King is fully assured that
the House of Commons will share in the deep sorrow which has
befallen his Majesty and the nation by the lamented death of
his Majesty's mother, the late Queen. Her devotion to the
welfare of her country and her people and her wise and
beneficent rule during the sixty-four years of her glorious
reign will ever be held in affectionate remembrance by her
loyal and devoted subjects throughout the dominions of the
British Empire."
The Marquis of Salisbury, in the House of Lords, and Mr.
Balfour, in the House of Commons, moved the following
Address, in speeches from which some passages have been quoted
above:
"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty to assure
his Majesty that this House deeply sympathizes in the great
sorrow which his Majesty has sustained by the death of our
beloved Sovereign, the late Queen, whose unfailing devotion to
the duties of her high estate and to the welfare of her people
will ever cause her reign to be remembered with reverence and
affection; to submit to his Majesty our respectful
congratulations on his accession to the Throne; to assure his
Majesty of our loyal attachment to his person; and, further,
to assure him of our earnest conviction that his reign will be
distinguished under the blessing of Providence by an anxious
desire to maintain the laws of the kingdom and to promote the
happiness, the welfare, and the liberty of his subjects."
Speeches in support of the motion were made by the leaders of
the Opposition party, the Earl of Kimberley, in the House of
Lords, and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, in the House of Commons,
and by the Archbishop of Canterbury, also, in the former
chamber. The Address was then adopted, and Parliament was
adjourned until February 14. On the 4th of February, the new
King addressed the following messages to his subjects in the
British Empire at large, to the Colonies, and to the princes
and people of India:
"To My People. Now that the last Scene has closed in the noble
and ever glorious life of My beloved Mother, The Queen, I am
anxious to endeavour to convey to the whole Empire the extent
of the deep gratitude I feel for the heart-stirring and
affectionate tributes which are everywhere borne to Her
Memory. I wish also to express My warm recognition of those
universal expressions of what I know to be genuine and loyal
sympathy with Me and with the Royal Family in our overwhelming
sorrow. Such expressions have reached Me from all parts of My
vast Empire, while at home the sorrowful, reverent and sincere
enthusiasm manifested in the magnificent display by sea and
land has deeply touched Me. The consciousness of this generous
spirit of devotion and loyalty among the millions of My Subjects
and of the feeling that we are all sharing a common sorrow,
has inspired Me with courage and hope during the past most
trying and momentous days. Encouraged by the confidence of
that love and trust which the nation ever reposed in its late
and fondly mourned Sovereign, I shall earnestly strive to walk
in Her Footsteps, devoting Myself to the utmost of My powers
to maintaining and promoting the highest interests of My
People, and to the diligent and zealous fulfilment of the
great and sacred responsibilities which, through the Will of
God, I am now called to undertake.
EDWARD, R. I."
{219}
"To My People Beyond the Seas. The countless messages of loyal
sympathy which I have received from every part of My Dominions
over the Seas testify to the universal grief in which the
whole Empire now mourns the loss of My Beloved Mother. In the
welfare and prosperity of Her subjects throughout Greater
Britain the Queen ever evinced a heartfelt, interest. She saw
with thankfulness the steady progress which, under a wide
extension of Self-Government, they had made during Her Reign.
She warmly appreciated their unfailing loyalty to Her Throne
and Person, and was proud to think of those who had so nobly
fought and died for the Empire's cause in South Africa. I have
already declared that it will be My constant endeavour to
follow the great example which has been bequeathed to Me. In
these endeavours I shall have a confident trust in the
devotion and sympathy of the People and of their several
Representative Assemblies throughout My vast Colonial
Dominions. With such loyal support I will, with God's
blessing, solemnly work for the promotion of the common
welfare and security of the great Empire over which I have now
been called to reign,
EDWARD, R. I."
"To the Princes and People of India. Through the lamented
death of My beloved and dearly mourned Mother, I have
inherited the Throne, which has descended to Me through a long
and ancient lineage, I now desire to send My greeting to the
Ruling Chiefs of the Native States, and to the Inhabitants of
My Indian Dominions, to assure them of My sincere good will
and affection, and of My heartfelt wishes for their welfare.
My illustrious and lamented Predecessor was the first
Sovereign of this Country who took upon Herself the direct
Administration of the Affairs of India, and assumed the title
of Empress in token of Her closer association with the
Government of that vast Country. In all matters connected with
India, the Queen Empress displayed an unvarying deep personal
interest, and I am well aware of the feeling of loyalty and
affection evinced by the millions of its peoples towards Her
Throne and Person. This feeling was conspicuously shown during
the last year of Her long and glorious reign by the noble and
patriotic assistance offered by the Ruling Princes in the
South African War, and by the gallant services rendered by the
Native Army beyond the limits of their own Country. It was by
Her wish and with Her sanction that I visited India and made
Myself personally acquainted with the Ruling Chiefs, the
people, and the cities of that ancient and famous Empire. I
shall never forget the deep impressions which I then received,
and I shall endeavour to follow the great example of the first
Queen Empress to work for the general well being of my Indian
subjects of all ranks, and to merit, as She did, their
unfailing loyalty and affection.
EDWARD, R. ET I."
English feeling toward the new sovereign of the British
Empire, and the English estimate of his character and promise,
are probably expressed quite truly, for the general mass of
intelligent people, by the following remarks of "The Times:"
"In the whole range of English social and political life there
is no position more difficult to fill satisfactorily and
without reproach than that of Heir Apparent to the Throne, and
it may be justly said that the way in which that position has
been filled for more than the ordinary lifetime of a
generation has contributed to the remarkable increase of
devotion to the Throne and the dynasty which is one of the
most striking characteristics of Queen Victoria's reign. In
the relations of private life, from his childhood upwards,
'the Prince' has been universally and deservedly popular.
Cheerful and amiable, kind and generous, ever ready to
sympathize with the joys and sorrows of those around him, a
true friend, and a loyal antagonist, possessing considerable
mental culture and wide intellectual sympathies without any
tinge of pedantry, he has represented worthily the type of the
genuine English gentleman. Though a lover of sport, like most
of his countrymen, he differed from some of them in never
regarding it as the chief interest and occupation in life. If
he had been born in a humbler station he might have become a
successful business man or an eminent administrator, for he
possesses many of the qualities which command success in such
spheres of action. He is a quick and methodical worker,
arranges his time so as never to be hurried, is scrupulously
conscientious in fulfilling engagements, great and small, with
a punctuality which has become proverbial, never forgets to do
anything he has undertaken, and never allows unanswered
letters to accumulate. Few men have a larger private
correspondence, and his letters have the clearness, the
directness, the exquisite tactfulness, and the absolute
freedom from all affectation which characterize his
conversation. … "In public life he has displayed the same
qualities and done a great deal of very useful work. The
numerous and often irksome ceremonial duties of his position
have been invariably fulfilled most conscientiously and with
fitting dignity. Of the remainder of his time a considerable
part has been devoted to what might be called semi-official
activity. In works of benevolence and public utility and in
efforts to promote the interests of science and art he was
ever ready and anxious to lend a helping hand. He never
forgot, however, that in his public appearances he had not the
liberty of speech and action enjoyed by the ordinary
Englishman. Whilst taking the keenest interest in public
affairs of every kind, he carefully abstained from
overstepping in the slightest degree the limits imposed on him
by constitutional tradition and usage. No party clique or
Court camarilla ever sheltered itself behind him, and no
political intrigue was ever associated with his name.
Throughout her dominions Queen Victoria had no more loyal,
devoted subject than her own eldest son. If this strictly
correct attitude had been confined to his relations with the
Head of the State we might have supposed that it proceeded
from a feeling of deep filial affection and reverence, but, as
it was displayed equally in his relations with Parliament and
politicians, we must assume that it proceeded also from a high
and discriminating sense of duty. Of the Prime Ministers,
leaders of her Majesty's Opposition, and politicians of minor
degree with whom he came in contact, he may have found some
more sympathetic than others, but such personal preferences
were carefully concealed in his manner, which was invariably
courteous and considerate, and were not allowed to influence
his conduct."
{220}
In another article, the same journal again remarked that
"there is no position more difficult to fill than that of Heir
Apparent to the Throne," and added: "It is beset by more than
all the temptations of actual Royalty, while the weight of
counteracting responsibility is much less directly felt. It
must be with a feeling akin to hopelessness that a man in that
position offers up the familiar prayer, 'Lead us not into
temptation.' Other men may avoid much temptation if they
honestly endeavour to keep out of its way, but the heir to a
Throne is followed, dogged, and importuned by temptation in
its most seductive forms. It is not only the obviously bad
that he has to guard against; he must also steel himself
against much that comes in the specious garb of goodness and
almost with the imperious command of necessity. The King has
passed through that tremendous ordeal, prolonged through youth
and manhood to middle age. We shall not pretend that there is
nothing in his long career which those who respect and admire
him could not wish otherwise. Which of us can say that with
even approximate temptations to meet he could face the fierce
light that beats upon an heir apparent no less than upon the
Throne?"
The King was in his sixtieth year when he succeeded to the
throne, having been born on the 9th of November, 1841. "By
inheritance under a patent of Edward III., he became at once
Duke of Cornwall, and a month later he was created, by patent,
Prince of 'Wales and Earl of Chester—titles which do not pass
by descent." He was married to the Princess Alexandra, of
Denmark, on the 10th of March, 1863. The children born of the
marriage have been six in all—three sons and three daughters.
Of the former only one survives, Prince George, Duke of York,
the second son, who will no doubt be created Prince of Wales.
The eldest son, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and
Avondale, died in his 27th year, on the eve of his marriage.
The third son, Alexander, born in 1871, died an infant. The
Duke of York is married to Princess Victoria Mary, daughter of
the late Duke of Teck and of his wife, Princess Mary of
Cambridge. There are four children of the marriage, three sons
and a daughter, the eldest son, in direct succession to the
Throne, bearing the name of Prince Edward Albert. Of the
daughters of the new Sovereign the eldest, Princess Louise, is
the wife of the Duke of Fife and has two daughters. Of her two
sisters, the Princess Victoria is unmarried. The Princess Maud
became in 1896 the wife of Prince Charles of Denmark.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (February).
The opening of Parliament by King Edward VII.
The royal declaration against transubstantiation and
the invocation of saints.
Protest of Roman Catholic peers.
Parliament, reassembling on the 14th of February, was formally
opened by the King in person, with a degree of pomp and
ceremony which had been made strange by half a century of
disuse. King and Queen were escorted in procession, with all
possible state, from Buckingham Palace to Westminster.
Received there, at the royal entrance, by the great officers
of state, they were conducted, by a still more imposing
procession of dignitaries, to the "robing room." "His Majesty
being robed and the Imperial Crown borne by the Duke of
Devonshire (Lord President of the Council), the Procession
advanced into the House of Peers in the same order, except
that the Cap of Maintenance borne immediately before His Majesty, on the right hand of the
Sword of State, by the Marquess of Winchester. The King being
seated on his Throne, the Lord bearing the Cap of Maintenance
stood on the Steps of the Throne, on the right, and the Peer
bearing the Sword of State, on the left, of His Majesty. The
Lord Chancellor, the Lord President and the Earl Marshal stood
on the right, and the Lord Privy Seal on the left, of His
Majesty; the Lord Great Chamberlain stood on the Steps of the
Throne on the left hand of His Majesty, to receive the Royal
Commands. The Lord Steward and the other officers of His
Majesty's Household arranged themselves on each side of the
Steps of the Throne, in the rear of the Great Officers of
State."
By hereditary right, the ceremonial arrangements of the
occasion were controlled by the Duke of Norfolk, as Earl
Marshal, and the Marquess of Cholmondeley, as Lord Great
Chamberlain, and they are said to have followed ancient
precedent with a strictness which became very offensive to
modern democratic feeling. The small chamber of the House of
Lords was so filled with peeresses as well as peers that next
to no room remained for the House of Commons when its members
were summoned to it, to meet the King. What should have been a
dignified procession behind the Speaker became, in
consequence, a mob-like crush and scramble, and only some
fifty out of five hundred Commoners are said to have succeeded
in squeezing themselves within range of his Majesty's eye. The
King, then, as required by laws of the seventeenth century
(the Bill of Rights and the Test Act—see, in volume 2,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689, OCTOBER, and 1672-1673) signed and made
oath to the following Declaration against the doctrine of
transubstantiation, the invocation of the Virgin and the
invocation of saints: "I doe solemnely and sincerely in the
presence of God professe testifie and declare that I doe
believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is
not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine
into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration
thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or
adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the
sacrifice of the masse as they are now used in the Church of
Rome are superstitions and idolatrous, and I doe solemnely in
the presence of God professe testifie and declare that I doe
make this declaration and every part thereof in the plaine and
ordinary sence of the words read unto me as they are commonly
understood by English Protestants without any evasion,
equivocation or mentall reservation whatsoever and without any
dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope
or any other authority or person whatsoever or without any
hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority
whatsoever or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted
before God or man or absolved of this declaration or any part
thereof although the Pope or any other person or persons or
power whatsoever should dispence with or annull the same, or
declare that it was null and void from the beginning."
{221}
Having thus submitted to the old test of a Protestant
qualification for the Throne, the King read his Speech to
Parliament, briefly stating the general posture of public
affairs and setting forth the business which the two Houses
were asked by government to consider. The war in South Africa
was dealt with by the royal speaker in a very few words, as
follows: "The war in South Africa has not yet entirely
terminated; but the capitals of the enemy and his principal
lines of communication are in my possession, and measures have
been taken which will, I trust, enable my troops to deal
effectually with the forces by which they are still opposed. I
greatly regret the loss of life and the expenditure of treasure
due to the fruitless guerrilla warfare maintained by Boer
partisans in the former territories of the two Republics.
Their early submission is much to be desired in their own
interests, as, until it takes place, it will be impossible for
me to establish in those colonies a government which will
secure equal rights to all the white inhabitants, and
protection and justice to the native population." In a later
paragraph of the Speech he said: "The prolongation of
hostilities in South Africa has led me to make a further call
upon the patriotism and devotion of Canada and Australasia. I
rejoice that my request has met with a prompt and loyal
response, and that large additional contingents from those
Colonies will embark for the seat of war at an early date."
The Speech concluded with the following announcement of
subjects and measures to be brought before Parliament:
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons, The Estimates for the year
will be laid before you. Every care has been taken to limit
their amount, but the naval and military requirements of the
country, and especially the outlay consequent on the South
African war, have involved an inevitable increase.
"The demise of the Crown renders it necessary that a renewed
provision shall be made for the Civil List. I place
unreservedly at your disposal those hereditary revenues which
were so placed by my predecessor; and I have commanded that
the papers necessary for a full consideration of the subject
shall be laid before you.
"My Lords and Gentlemen, Proposals will be submitted to your
judgment for increasing the efficiency of my military forces.
"Certain changes in the constitution of the Court of Final
Appeal are rendered necessary in consequence of the increased
resort to it, which has resulted from the expansion of the
Empire during the last two generations.
"Legislation will be proposed to you for the amendment of the
Law relating to Education.
"Legislation has been prepared, and, if the time at your
disposal shall prove to be adequate, will be laid before you,
for the purpose of regulating the voluntary sale by landlords
to occupying tenants in Ireland, for amending and
consolidating the Factory and Workshops Acts, for the better
administration of the Law respecting Lunatics, for amending
the Public Health Acts in regard to Water Supply, for the
prevention of drunkenness in Licensed Houses or Public Places,
and for amending the Law of Literary Copyright.
"I pray that Almighty God may continue to guide you in the
conduct of your deliberations, and may bless them with
success."
Dated from the House of Lords, on the day of the opening, the
following protest, signed by Roman Catholic peers (of whom
there are thirty), against the continued requirement from the
British sovereign of the Declaration quoted above, was laid
before the Lord Chancellor: "My Lord,—On the opening of his
first Parliament to-day his Majesty was called upon to make
and subscribe the so-called Declaration against
Transubstantiation, which was framed during the reign of
Charles II., at a moment when religious animosities were
unusually bitter.
"Some days ago we addressed ourselves to your lordship, as the
chief authority on English law, to ascertain whether it was
possible to bring about any modification of those parts of the
Declaration which are specially provocative to the religious
feelings of Catholics. We received from your lordship the
authoritative assurance that no modification whatever was
possible, except by an Act of Parliament, and that no action
of ours would therefore be of the slightest use to effect the
pacific purpose we had in view. The Sovereign himself has, it
appears, no option, and is obliged by statute to use the very
words prescribed, although we feel assured that his Gracious
Majesty would willingly have been relieved (as all his
subjects have for many years been relieved by Act of
Parliament) from the necessity of branding with contumelious
epithets the religious tenets of any of his subjects.
"While we submit to the law, we cannot be wholly silent on
this occasion, We desire to impress upon your lordship that
the expressions used in this Declaration made it difficult and
painful for Catholic peers to attend to-day in the House of Lords
in order to discharge their official or public duties, and
that those expressions cannot but cause the deepest pain to
millions of subjects of his Majesty in all parts of the
Empire, who are as loyal and devoted to his Crown and person
as any others in his dominions.
"We are, my lord, your lordship's most obedient and faithful
servants."
London Times,
February 15, 1901.
In the House of Lords, on the 22d of February, the Marquis of
Salisbury made the following reply to Lord Braye, who asked if
the Prime Minister could hold out hope of an early measure to
abolish the oath so offensive to Catholic subjects of the
King: "Though I am very anxious to give an answer which would
be satisfactory to the noble lord and his co-religionists, I
do not wish to leave on his mind an impression that there are
any doubts in the matter. We all of us deplore the language in
which that declaration is couched, and very much wish it could
be otherwise expressed; but when it comes to altering an
enactment which has now lasted, as far as I know, without
serious question, 200 years, and which was originally included
in the Bill of Rights, it is a matter which cannot be done
without very considerable thought. We must remember that an
enactment of that kind represents the passions, feelings, and
sensibilities of the people by whom it was originally caused;
and that these have not died out. They are not strong within
these walls; but there are undoubtedly parts of the country
where the controversies which the declaration represents still
flourish, and where the emotions which it indicates have not
died out. Before an enactment is proposed, with all the
discussion which must precede such an enactment, we shall have
to consider how far it is desirable to light again passions
which sleep at this moment, for an occasion which is not now
urgent, and which we all earnestly hope may not be urgent in
our lives.
{222}
I do not wish to debar the noble lord from any action which he
may think it right to take; but I wish to point out to him the
extreme difficulties and anxieties which would accompany any
such attempt. With respect to the actual question of
legislation, I need hardly observe that it is rather a
question for the House of Commons than for us, because here I
do not imagine there would be any doubt whatever about the
result of such attempted legislation. But I could not be
certain that a very strong feeling might not be excited
elsewhere; and I notice that, possibly with a view to that
consideration, the leader of the other House, in answer to a
question, said that, at all events for the present year, he
did not see the possibility of having the requisite
opportunity of bringing the question before the House. I am
afraid, therefore, however deeply I sympathize with the
feelings of the noble lord and wish there had been no cause
for their being appealed to, that my answer would have to be
of a discouraging character."
Notwithstanding this discouraging reply to the question, Lord
Salisbury, on the 21st of March, moved the following
resolution in the House of Lords: "To resolve that it is
desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed
to consider the declaration required of the Sovereign, on his
accession, by the Bill of Rights: and to report whether its
language can be modified advantageously, without diminishing
its efficacy as a security for the maintenance of the
Protestant succession." On introducing the resolution he said:
"The only thing that it is necessary I should mention is that
something has been said with respect to referring the
Coronation Oath to the same committee and making in it
alterations which undoubtedly will have to be made. But the
two subjects are not at all similar, and it would have been
impossible to put the Coronation Oath into this reference. If,
later, it should be thought wise to use the same committee for
the purpose of considering the matter of the Coronation Oath, I
probably shall see no difficulty in that."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (February).
Attitude of the Liberal party towards the South African War.
At the annual meeting of the general committee of the National
Liberal Federation, held at Rugby, February 27, 1901, more
than 400 affiliated Liberal Associations in England and Wales
being represented by about 500 delegates, including many
eminent men, the following resolution was adopted: "That this
committee records its profound conviction that the long
continuance of the deplorable war in South Africa, declared
for electioneering purposes to be over last September, is due
to the policy of demanding unconditional surrender and to a
want of knowledge, foresight, and judgment on the part of the
Government, who have neither demonstrated effectively to the
Boers the military supremacy of Great Britain, nor so
conducted the war as to induce them to lay down their arms;
this committee bitterly laments the slaughter of thousands of
brave men on both sides, the terrible loss of life from
disease, owing in no small degree to the scandalous inadequacy
of sanitary and hospital arrangements provided for our forces,
and the enormous waste of resources in actual expenditure upon
the war, in the devastation of territory, and in the economic
embarrassments which must inevitably follow; the committee
calls upon the Government to announce forthwith, and to carry
out, on the cessation of hostilities, a policy for the
settlement of South African affairs which will secure equal
rights to the white races, just and humane treatment of
natives, and such a measure of self-government as can
honourably be accepted by a brave and high-spirited people."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (February).
Emphatic declaration of the policy of the government in
dealing with the Boers.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1901.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (March).
Rejection of the Inter-oceanic Canal Treaty as amended
by the United States Senate.
See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1901 (MARCH).
----------ENGLAND: End--------
ENSLIN, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
EPWORTH LEAGUE, The.
The Epworth League, an organization of young people in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, on lines and with objects kindred
to those of the "Young People's Society of Christian Endeavor"
(see, in this volume, CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR), was instituted by a
convention of representatives from various societies of young
people in that church, held at Cleveland, Ohio, May 14-15,
1889. It was officially adopted by the General Conference of
the M. E. Church in 1892. The Year-book of the League for 1901
says:—"A dozen years ago the Epworth League had no regularly
organized Chapter. To-day it has almost twenty-one thousand.
Twelve years ago it had a total membership of twenty-seven.
To-day it has a million and a half. Twelve years ago the
Junior League had scarcely been dreamed of. To-day it is the
most promising division of the great Epworth army, having a
membership of tens of thousands. Twelve years ago a suggestion
to establish a newspaper organ was looked upon as a most
doubtful experiment, and predictions of failure were freely
made. To-day the organization has an official journal whose
circulation exceeds that of any Church weekly in the world."
ETRUSCANS, The:
Fresh light on their origin.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: ITALY.
EUPHRATES, Valley of the:
Recent archæological exploration.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.
EUROPEAN RACES, The expansion of the.
See (in this volume)
NINETEENTH CENTURY: EXPANSION.
EVOLUTION, The doctrine of:
Its influence on the Nineteenth Century.
See (in this volume)
NINETEENTH CENTURY: DOMINANT LINES.
EXCAVATIONS, Recent archæological.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
EXPLOSIVES FROM BALLOONS, Declaration against.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
{223}
EXPOSITION, The Cotton States and International.
See (in this volume)
ATLANTA: A. D. 1895.
EXPOSITION, National Export.
See (in this volume)
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONGRESS.
EXPOSITION, Pan-American.
See (in this volume)
BUFFALO: A. D. 1901.
EXPOSITION, Paris.
See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
EXPOSITION, Scandinavian.
See (in this volume)
STOCKHOLM.
EXPOSITION, Tennessee Centennial, at Nashville.
See (in this volume)
TENNESSEE: A. D 1897.
EXPOSITION, Trans-Mississippi.
See (in this volume)
OMAHA: A. D. 1898.
EXTERRITORIAL RIGHTS.
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1899 (JULY).
F.
FAMINE: In China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
FAMINE: In India.
See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1896-1897; and 1899-1900.
FAMINE: In Russia.
See (in this volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1899.
"FANATICS," The.
See (in this volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1897.
FAR EASTERN QUESTION, The.
See (in this volume)
CONCERT OF EUROPE.
FARM BURNING, In the South African War.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
FARMERS' ALLIANCE, and Industrial Union, The.
The Supreme Council of the Farmers' Alliance and Industrial
Union held its fourth annual session at Washington, February
6-8, 1900, and pledged support to whatever candidates should
be named by the national convention of the Democratic Party,
making, at the same time, a declaration of principles
analogous to those maintained by the People's Party.
FASHODA INCIDENT, The.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
FAURE, Francois Felix, President of the French Republic.
Sudden death.
See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
FEDERAL STEEL COMPANY, The.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.
FÊNG-TIEN PENINSULA: A. D. 1894-1895.
Cession in part to Japan and subsequent relinquishment.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895.
FÊNG-TIEN PENINSULA: A. D. 1900.
Russian occupation and practical Protectorate.
See (in this volume)
MANCHURIA: A. D. 1900.
FILIPINOS.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
FINLAND: A. D. 1898-1901.
A blow at the constitutional rights of the country.
Attempt to Russianize the Finnish army.
Possible defeat of the measure.
"In July, 1898, just one month before the publication of the
Czar's Peace Manifesto, the Diet of Finland was summoned to
meet in extraordinary session during January, 1899, in order
to debate upon the new Army Bill submitted by the Russian
Government. Hitherto, the army of Finland has been strictly
national in character, and has served solely for the defence
of the province. The standing army has been limited to 5,600
men, 1,920 of whom are annually selected to bear arms during a
period of three years. This has now been changed; the main
features of the new Army Bill being as follows:
1. Finnish troops may be requisitioned for service beyond the
confines of the Grand Duchy.
2. Russians may serve in the Finnish, and Finlanders in the
Russian, Army.
3. A lightening of the duties of military service upon the
ground of superior education will be granted to those only who
can speak, read, and write Russian.
4. The period of active service under the flag is increased
from three years to five.
5. The annual contingent of soldiers in active service is
increased from 1,920 men to 7,200.
We at once perceive the fundamental nature of these changes,
which threaten to impose a far heavier burden upon Finland,
and to Russify her army. Naturally, the new law met with the
most determined opposition. But while the bill was still in
committee there appeared on February 15, 1899, an Imperial
ukase, whereby the entire situation was radically changed, and
the independence of Finland seriously threatened. This ukase
decrees that while the internal administration and legislation
of Finland are to remain unimpaired, matters affecting the
common interests of Finland and Russia are to be no longer
submitted solely to the jurisdiction of the Grand Duchy.
Furthermore, the Emperor reserves to himself the final
decision as to which matters are to be included in the above
category. …
"The document is couched in terms expressing good-will for
Finland. In effect, however, it signifies the complete
demolition of the constitutional rights of that country. For
in all matters involving the interests of both countries, or
affecting in any way those of Russia, Finland will hereafter
be confined to a mere expression of opinion: she will no
longer be able to exercise the privilege of formulating an

independent resolution. The definition of 'common interests'
as furnished by the ukase is so vague as to make the exercise
of any form of self-government on the part of the Finlanders a
matter of uncertainty, if not of serious difficulty. Not only
the interpretation of 'common interests,' but also the
designation of the law governing them, is primarily in the
hands of the Russian authorities. Finland, an independent,
constitutional state [see, in volume 4, SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
A. D. 1807-1810], has been, or, at all events, is to be,
converted into a province of Russia. …
"The conviction is general that the Czar, who had formerly
manifested such good-will toward the country, and who had
abrogated the enactments curtailing its constitutional rights,
could not possibly have so completely changed his views within
so short a time. Consequently, it was decided to address a
monster petition in behalf of the people directly to the ruler
himself. This plan met with the enthusiastic approval of the
entire nation, and the document was signed by no fewer than
523,931 men and women of Finland.
{224}
A deputation of five hundred was elected to present this
petition, which so eloquently voiced the conviction of the
whole nation. These five hundred representatives went to St.
Petersburg, and requested an audience with the Czar. But their
efforts were unavailing. They were not received; and it
appeared as if the united voice of a peaceful and loyal people
could not penetrate to the ear of the ruler.
"In the meantime the attention of all Europe was directed to
the matter; and everywhere the liveliest sympathy was
manifested for that little Nation in the Northeast. … There
now arose—entirely from private initiative, and without the
exercise of any influence on the part of Finland—a general
movement among European nations to select prominent scholars
and artists; i. e., men entirely removed from the political
arena, to act as representatives of the popular sentiment, and
to speak a good word with the Czar in behalf of Finland. …
Addresses of sympathy for Finland were formulated in England,
France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland,
Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway; and these
addresses were signed by over one thousand and fifty scholars
and artists. … All the addresses together were to be presented
to the Czar by a small deputation; and for this purpose the
Commission mentioned at the beginning of this article
proceeded to St. Petersburg. The gentlemen took great pains to
secure an audience; they went from one minister to another,
and avoided every appearance of unfriendliness. Nevertheless,
their request was politely declined; and the acceptance of the
document bearing the signatures of over one thousand
notabilitles firmly refused."
R. Eucken,
The Finnish Question
(Forum, November, 1899).
A correspondent of the "London Times," writing from
Helsingfors, December 28, 1900, reported: "The situation in
Finland at the end of the year is by no means improved,
notwithstanding a few gratifying events, such as the
permission granted by General Bobrikoff for a new daily paper
to be published in Helsingfors. … Two papers, one published in
a provincial town, and a weekly journal in Helsingfors, have
been suppressed for ever, and the preventive censorship is
applied with the utmost rigour. The Governor-General has
displayed great energy in enforcing the restrictions on the
right to hold meetings, and he has in circulars to the
provincial Governors issued instructions for the introduction
of Russian as the language of the Provincial Government
offices even earlier, and more fully, than is provided for in
the language ordinance promulgated last autumn. Denunciations
of private persons to General Bobrikoff by secret agents, as
well as public authorities, are events of well-nigh daily
occurrence, and one consequence of these secret reports is
that five University professors are threatened with summary
dismissal unless they 'bind themselves to mix themselves up no
longer in any sort of political agitation.' …
"The question of the new military law will in all probability
come before the Russian Imperial Council in January, all
authorities concerned having had an opportunity of expressing
their views on the report made on the question by the Finnish
Diet in 1899, including the Minister of War, General
Kuropatkin. In conformity with the manifesto of February 15,
1899, this report will be regarded merely as an 'opinion'
given by that body, in no way binding when the matter comes up
for further consideration. This scheme, it will be remembered,
not only imposes on Finland a military burden beyond the
powers of the country, but has the political aim of
denationalizing the Finnish army, and is thus intended to
serve as a potent lever in the Russification of the Grand
Duchy. The main features of the Bill were rejected by the
Finnish Diet, but, although several members of the Imperial
Council are opposed to the new scheme, it is believed that it
will gain the majority in the Council in all its more salient
points."
Three months later (February 26, 1901), an important change in
the situation was reported from St. Petersburg by the same
correspondent. The project of Russifying the Finnish army had
suffered defeat, he learned, in the Council of State, by a
large majority. "But," he added, "this does not by any means
imply that the military reform scheme in Finland, which has
been the chief cause of all the harm done to the Finnish
Constitution during the last three years, has been finally
upset. A similar procedure in any other European civilized
country would mean as much, but it is not so in Russia. It
simply means that the Russification of Finland is still being
prosecuted by a small powerful minority, who will probably
gain their point in spite of the vast majority of his
Majesty's councillors. The Council of State, the highest
institution in the sphere of supreme administration, is merely
a consultative body, whose opinion can be, and often has been,
set aside by the Sovereign without the least difficulty. A mere
stroke of the pen is necessary.
"In the present case the Finnish military project was
discussed by the four united departments of the Council. It is
stated that M. Pobiedonostzeff and the Minister of War said
nothing, being, perhaps, either too much impressed by the
speech of M. Witte against the project, or feeling sure of
their ground without the need of entering into useless
discussion. M. Witte, whose influence is gradually embracing
every branch of government, is also looming big in this
question. He is reported to have made a speech on the occasion
which carried over 40 members of the Council with him in
opposition to the project. He attacked it principally on
financial grounds, and declared that nobody could advise his
Majesty to adopt it. The rejection of the proposal by the four
departments is preliminary to its discussion by a plenary
assembly of the Council, and only after that has taken place
will the opinion of the majority be laid before the Emperor,"
FIST OF RIGHTEOUS HARMONY, Society of the.
See(in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, The.
See (in this volume)
INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1893-1899.
FORBIDDEN CITY, March of allied forces through the.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST 15-28).
FORMOSA: A. D. 1895.
Cession by China to Japan.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895.
FORMOSA: A. D. 1896.
Chinese risings against the Japanese.
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1896.
{225}
----------FRANCE: Start--------
FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1896.
Final subjugation and annexation of Madagascar.
See (in this volume)
MADAGASCAR.
FRANCE: A. D. 1895.
Cession of Kiang-Hung by China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895 (MARCH-JULY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1895.
Ministerial changes.
The alliance with Russia.
On the resignation of the presidency of the Republic by M.
Casimir-Perier and the election of M. Felix Faure to succeed
him (January 15-17), a ministry was formed which represented
the moderate republican groups, with M. Ribot at its head, as
President of the Council and Minister of Finance, and with M.
Hanotaux as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
See, in volume 2,
FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895).
The most important work of the new government was the
arrangement of an alliance with Russia, which was
conspicuously signified to the world by the union of the
French and Russian fleets when they entered the German harbor
of Kiel, on the 17th of June, to take part in the celebration
of the opening of the Kaiser Wilhelm Ship Canal, between the
Baltic and North Seas (see, in this volume, GERMANY: A. D.
1895, JUNE). This gave the greatest possible satisfaction to
the nation, and powerfully strengthened the ministers for a
time; but they were discredited a little later in the year by
disclosures of waste, extravagance and peculation in the
military department. Early in the autumn session of the
Chamber of Deputies a vote was carried against them, and they
resigned. A more radical cabinet was then formed, under M.
Leon Bourgeois, President of the Council and Minister of the
Interior; with M. Berthelot holding the portfolio of foreign
affairs, M. Cavaignac that of war, and M. Lockroy that of the
marine.
FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (January).
Agreement with Great Britain concerning Siam.
See (in this volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.
FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (March).
Census of the Republic.
Returns of a national census taken in March showed a
population in France of 38,228,969, being an increase in five
years of only 133,919. The population of Paris was 2,511;955.
FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (April-May).
Change of Ministry.
Socialist gains.
After a long conflict with a hostile Senate, the Radical
Ministry of M. Bourgeois gave way and was succeeded, April 30,
by a Cabinet of Moderate Republicans, in which M. Méline
presided, holding the portfolio of Agriculture, and with M.
Hanotaux returned to the direction of Foreign Affairs. At
municipal elections in the following month the Socialists made
important gains. "The elections of May, 1896, revealed the
immense progress that socialism had made in all lands since
the year 1893. Towns as important as Lille, Roubaix, Calais,
Montluçon, Narbonne, re-elected socialist majorities to
administer their affairs; and even where there was only a
socialist minority, a socialist mayor was elected, as in the
case of Dr. Flaissières at Marseilles, and Cousteau at
Bordeaux. But in the small towns and the villages our
victories have been especially remarkable. The Parti Ouvrier
alone can reckon more than eighteen hundred m municipal
councillors elected upon its collectivist programme; and at
the Lille Congress, which was held a few days before the
International Congress in London, thirty-eight socialist
municipal councils and twenty-one socialist minorities of
municipal councils were represented by their mayors or by
delegates chosen by the party."
P. Lafargue,
Socialism in France
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1897).
FRANCE: A. D. 1897.
Industrial combinations.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1897 (May-June).
Cessions and concessions from China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JUNE).
FRANCE: A. D. 1897 (June).
Renewal of the privileges of the Bank of France.
See (in this volume)
MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897.
FRANCE: A. D. 1897 (July).
Co-operation with American envoys in negotiations for a
bi-metallic agreement with Great Britain.
See (in this volume)
MONETARY QUESTIONS:
A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899.
The Dreyfus Affair.
Although Captain Alfred Dreyfus, of the French army, was
arrested, tried by court-martial, convicted of treasonable
practices, in the betrayal of military secrets to a foreign
power, and thereupon degraded and imprisoned, in 1894, it was
not until 1897 that his case became historically important, by
reason of the unparalleled agitations to which it gave rise,
threatening the very life of the French Republic, and exciting
the whole civilized world. Accordingly we date the whole
extraordinary story of Captain Dreyfus and his unscrupulous
enemies in the French Army Staff from that year, in order to
place it in proper chronological relations with other events.
As told here, the story is largely borrowed from a singularly
clear review of its complicated incidents by Sir Godfrey
Lushington, formerly Permanent Under Secretary in the British
Home Office, which appeared in the "London Times," while the
question of a revision of the Dreyfus trial was pending in the
Court of Cassation. We are indebted to the publisher of "The
Times" for permission to make use of it:
"In October, 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, an artillery
officer on the staff, was arrested for treason. He belonged to
a respected and highly loyal Jewish family in Alsace, his
military character was unblemished, and he was in easy
circumstances. At this time General Mercier was Minister of
War, General de Boisdeffre Chief of the Staff (practically
Commander-in-Chief of the French army), General Gonse,
Assistant-Chief. Colonel Sandherr, well known as an
Anti-Semite, was head of the Intelligence Department, under
him were Commandants Picquart, Henry, and Lauth, also the
Archivist Griblin. Commandant Du Paty de Clam was an officer
attached to the general staff. Commandant Esterhazy was
serving with his regiment. On October 15, on the order of the
Minister of War, Captain Dreyfus was arrested by Commandant Du
Paty de Clam, and taken in the charge of Commandant Henry to
the Cherche-Midi Prison, of which Commandant Forzinetti was
governor. For a fortnight extraordinary precautions were taken
to keep his arrest an absolute secret from the public and even
from his own family. His wife alone knew of it, but dared not
speak. … So harsh was his treatment that Commandant Forzinetti
felt it his duty to take the strong step of making a formal
representation to the Minister of War and also to the Governor
of Paris, at the same time declaring his own conviction that
Captain Dreyfus was an innocent man.
{226}
On October 31 Commandant Du Paty de Clam made his report,
which has not seen the light, and on November 3 Commandant
d'Ormescheville was appointed 'rapporteur' to conduct a
further inquiry, and in due course to draw up a formal report,
which practically constitutes the case for the prosecution.
Not till then was Captain Dreyfus informed of the particulars
of the charge about to be laid against him. From this report
of Commandant d'Ormescheville's we learn that the basis of the
accusation against Captain Dreyfus was a document known by the
name of the 'bordereau' [memorandum]. Neither Commandant
d'Ormescheville's report nor the 'bordereau' has been
officially published by the Government, but both ultimately
found their way into the newspapers. The bordereau was a
communication not dated, nor addressed, nor signed. It
began:—'Sans nouvelles m'indiquant que vous désirez me voir,
je vous adresse cependant, Monsieur, quelques renseignemcnts
intéressants.' ['Without news indicating that you wish to see
me, I send you, nevertheless, monsieur, some important
information.'] (Then followed the titles of various military
documents, 1, 2, &c.) The report stated that the bordereau had
fallen into the hands of the Minister of War, but how the
Minister declined to say, beyond making a general statement
that the circumstances showed that it had been sent to an
agent of a foreign Power. It is now generally accepted that it
had been brought to the War Office by a spy—an Alsatian porter
who was in the service of Colonel von Schwarzkoppen, then the
military attache to the German Embassy in Paris. The report
contained nothing to show that Captain Dreyfus had been
following treasonable practices or to connect him in any
manner with the bordereau. The sole question for the
Court-martial was whether the bordereau was in his
handwriting. On this the experts were divided, three being of
opinion that it was, two that it was not, in his handwriting.
"The Court-martial was duly held, and Captain Dreyfus had the
aid of counsel, Maître Demange; but the first act of the Court
was, at the instance of the Government representative, to
declare the 'huis cols,' so that none but those concerned were
present. After the evidence had been taken the Court,
according to custom, adjourned to consider their verdict in
private. Ultimately they found Captain Dreyfus guilty, and he
was sentenced to be publicly expelled from the army and
imprisoned for life. Not till after his conviction was he
allowed to communicate with his wife and family. The sentence
has been carried out with the utmost rigour. Captain Dreyfus
was transported to the Isle du Diable [off the coast of French
Guiana], where he lives in solitary confinement. … The
Court-martial having been held within closed doors, the public
at large knew nothing … beyond the fact that Captain Dreyfus
had been convicted of betraying military secrets to a foreign
Power, and they had no suspicion that there had been any
irregularity at the Court-martial or that the verdict was a
mistaken one. … For two years the Dreyfus question may be said
to have slumbered. In the course of this time Colonel
Sandherr, who died in January, 1897, had been compelled to
retire from ill-health, and Commandant Picquart became head of
the Intelligence Department. … In May, 1896, there were
brought to the Intelligence Department of the War Office some
more sweepings from Colonel von Schwarzkoppen's waste-paper
basket by the same Alsatian porter who had brought the
bordereau. These were put by Commandant Henry into a packet,
and given by him (according to the usual custom) to Commandant
Picquart. Commandant Picquart swears that amongst these were
about 60 small pieces of paper. These (also according to
custom) he gave to Commandant Lauth to piece together. When
pieced together they were found to constitute the document
which is known by the name of 'Petit bleu, à carte télégramme'
for transmission through the Post-office, but which had never
been posted. It was addressed to Commandant Esterhazy, and ran
as follows:
"'J'attendsavant tout une explication plus détaillée que celle
que vous m'avez donnée, l'autre jour, sur la question en
suspens. En conséquence, je vous prie de me la donner par
écrit, pour pouvoir juger si je puis continuer mes relations
avec la maison R … ou non. [I await, before anything farther, a
more detailed explanation than you gave me the other day on
the question now in suspense. In consequence, I request you to
give this to me in writing, that I may judge whether I can
continue my relations with the house of R. or not.] M. le
Commandant Esterhazy, 27, Rue de la Bienfaisance, Paris.'
"At this time Commandant Esterhazy was a stranger to
Commandant Picquart, and the first step which Commandant
Picquart took was to make inquiry as to who and what he was.
His character proved most disreputable, and he was in money
difficulties. The next was to obtain a specimen of his
handwriting in order to compare it with other writings which
had been brought by spies to the office and were kept there.
In this way it came about that it was compared with the
facsimile of the bordereau, when, lo and behold, the writings
of the two appeared identical. It was Commandant Esterhazy,
then, who had written the bordereau, and if Commandant
Esterhazy, then not Captain Dreyfus. … Commandant Picquart
acquainted his chiefs with what had been done—namely, General
de Boisdeffre in July, and his own immediate superior, General
Gonse, in September. …
"On September 15 of the same year, 1896, took place the first
explosion. This solely concerned the Dreyfus trial. On that
day the 'Éclair,' an anti-Semite newspaper, published an
article headed 'Le Traitre,' in which they stated that at the
Court-martial the 'pièce d'accusation' on which Captain
Dreyfus was tried was the bordereau; but that after the Court
had retired to the 'chamber of deliberation,' there was
communicated to them from the War Office, in the absence of
the prisoner and his counsel, a document purporting to be
addressed by the German military attaché to his colleague at
the Italian Embassy in Paris, and ending with a postscript,
'Cet animal de Dreyfus devient trop exigcant'; further, that
this document was the only one in which appeared the name
Dreyfus. This at once had removed all doubts from the minds of
the Court-martial, who thereupon had unanimously brought the
prisoner in guilty; and the 'Eclair' called upon the
Government to produce this document and thus satisfy the
public conscience. This document has, for sufficient reasons
hereinafter appearing, come to be known as 'le document
libérateur,' and by this name we will distinguish it.
{227}
As to the article in the 'Eclair,' it must have proceeded
either from a member of the Court-martial or from some one in
the War Office; but whether its contents were true is a matter
which to this day has not been fully cleared up. This much,
however, is known. We have the authority of Maître Demange
(Captain Dreyfus's advocate) that no such document was brought
before the Court-martial during the proceedings at which he
was present. On the other hand, it has now been admitted that
at the date of Captain Dreyfus's trial there was, and that
there had been for some months previously, in the archives of
the War Office a similar document, not in the Dreyfus'
dossier' proper, but in a secret dossier, only that the words
therein are not 'Cet animal de Dreyfus,' but 'Ce (sic)
canaille de D—' (initial only) 'devient trop exigeant.' … The
Government have never yet either admitted or denied that
General Mercier went down to the Court-martial and made to
them a secret communication. …
"As might have been expected, the article in the 'Eclair'
occasioned a considerable stir; both parties welcomed it, the
one as showing Captain Dreyfus to have been really a traitor
and therefore justly deserving his sentence; the other as a
proof that whether guilty or not he had been condemned
illegally on a document used behind his back. The public
excitement was increased when on the 10th of November the
'Matin'—a War Office journal—published what purported to be a
fac-simile of the bordereau, and a host of experts and others
set to work to compare it with the accused's handwriting. The
reproduction was no doubt made, not from the original
bordereau, which was in the sealed-up Dreyfus dossier, but
from a photograph of it. And the photograph must have been
obtained surreptitiously from some one in the War Office or
from some one who had attended the secret Court-martial. … The
natural sequel to these revelations was an interpellation in
the Chamber—the 'interpellation Castelin' of November 18,
1896. On that day, M. Castelin, an anti-Semite deputy, by
asking some question as to the safe custody of Dreyfus, gave
the Government an opportunity. General Billot, then Minister
of War, replied in general terms—'L'instruction de l'affaire,
les débats, le jugement, ont eu lieu conformément aux règles
de la procédure militaire. Le Conseil de Guerre regulièrement
compose, a regulièrement déliberé,' &c. ['The instructions,
the debates, the verdict, have all taken place conformably to
the rules of military procedure. The Court-martial, regularly
composed, has deliberated regularly,' etc.] … On November 14,
1896, on the eve of the Interpellation Castelin, Commandant
Picquart was sent on a secret mission, which has not been
disclosed. He left his duties as head of the Intelligence
Department nominally in the hands of General Gonse, his
superior, but practically to be discharged by Commandant
Henry, who was Commandant Picquart's subordinate. He requested
his family to address their private letters for him to the War
Office, whence they would be forwarded. His secret mission, or
missions, took him first to Nancy, then to Besançon
(permission being refused to him to return to Paris even for a
night to renew his wardrobe), later on to Algeria and Tunisia,
with instructions to proceed to the frontier. … In March,
1897, Commandant Picquart was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel of
the 4th Tirailleurs, the appointment being represented to him
as a favour. He was the youngest Colonel in the service. In
his stead Commandant Henry became Chief of the Intelligence
Department. … From the first Colonel Picquart had, of course,
felt some uneasiness at being sent on these missions away from
his ordinary duties, and various little circumstances occurred
to increase it, and in May, 1897, having occasion to write
unofficially to Commandant Henry, now Chief of the
Intelligence Department, he expressed himself strongly as to
the mystery and falsities with which his departure had been
surrounded; and he received a reply dated June 3, in which
Commandant Henry said that the mystery he could well enough
explain by what had come to his knowledge after some inquiry,
and he alluded in general to three circumstances—(1) Opening
letters in the post; (2) attempt to suborn two officers in the
service to speak to a certain writing as being that of a
certain person; and (3) the opening of a secret dossier. The
first Colonel Picquart knew to refer to his having intercepted
Commandant Esterhazy's letters; the other two allusions he did
not at the time (June, 1897) fully understand; but the letter,
couched in such terms and coming from one who had until lately
been his subordinate, and was now the head of the Department,
convinced him that he was the object of serious and secret
machinations in the War Office. He immediately applied for
leave and came to Paris. There he determined, with a view to
his self-defence, to obtain legal advice from an advocate, M.
Leblois; saw him, and showed him Colonel Henry's letter, and,
whilst abstaining (according to his own account and that of M.
Leblois) from touching on the third matter, the secret
dossier, spoke freely on the other two—on the 'affaires'
Dreyfus and Esterhazy generally; also, in order to explain how
far he had acted with the sanction or cognizance of his
superiors, he placed in his hands the correspondence—not
official but confidential—about Commandant Esterhazy which he
had had with General Gonse in 1896. He left it to M. Leblois
to take what course he might think necessary, and returned to
Sousse. In the course of the autumn he was summoned to Tunis
and asked by the military authority there whether he had been
robbed of a secret document by a woman. The question seemed a
strange one and was answered by him with a simple negative.
Later on he received at Sousse two telegrams from Paris, dated
November 10. One:—'Arretez Bondieu. Tout est découvert.
Affaire très grave. Speranza.' This was addressed to Tunis and
forwarded to Sousse. The other:—'On a des preuves que le bleu est
fabriqué par Georges. Blanche.' This was addressed to Sousse.
And two days after he received a letter, likewise of November
10, from Esterhazy, an abusive one, charging him with
conspiring against him, &c. He felt certain that the telegrams
were sent in order to compromise him. … Colonel Picquart
suspected Commandant Esterhazy to be the author of the
telegrams, the more so that in Commandant Esterhazy's letter
and in one of the telegrams his own name Picquart was spelt
without a c. He at once telegraphed to Tunis for leave to come
and see the General there.
{228}
He did see him and through him forwarded to the Minister of
War the three documents, with a covering letter in which he
demanded an inquiry. He then obtained leave to go to Paris,
but the condition was imposed on him that he should see no one
before presenting himself to General de Pellieux. When he saw
the General he learnt for the first time and to his surprise
that ever since he left Paris in November, 1896, his letters
had been intercepted and examined at the War Office and he was
called upon to explain various letters and documents. …
"Before June, 1897, Commandant Esterhazy's name had not been
breathed to the public; it is now to come out, and from two
independent sources. Some little time after seeing Colonel
Picquart, in June, 1897, M. Leblois had determined, in his
interest, to consult M. Scheurer-Kestner, who was well known
to have taken an interest in the 'affaire Dreyfus,' because of
the suspicion that Captain Dreyfus had been condemned on a
document which he had never seen and because of the
discrepancies between Captain Dreyfus's handwriting and that
of the bordereau. He was Vice-President of the Senate and a
personal friend of General Billot, the Minister of War. M.
Leblois communicated to him what he knew about Commandant
Esterhazy and showed him General Gonse's letters to Colonel
Picquart. In October M. Scheurer-Kestner communicated on the
subject both with General Billot and with the President of the
Council, M. Méline. He was now to learn the name of Commandant
Esterhazy from another quarter. One afternoon in the end of
October a M. de Castro, a stock-broker, was seated in a cafe
in Paris, and a boy from the street came up with copies of the
facsimile of the bordereau, which had then been on sale for
more than a year. M. de Castro bought a copy, and at once
recognized, as he thought, the handwriting of the bordereau to
be that of Commandant Esterhazy, who was a client of his. He
took the copy home, compared it with letters of Commandant
Esterhazy, and all doubts vanished. His friends told M.
Matthieu Dreyfus, who begged him to take the letters to M.
Scheurer-Kestner, and he did so on November 12, 1897, and M.
Scheurer-Kestner advised that M. Matthieu Dreyfus should go to
General Billot and denounce Commandant Esterhazy as the author
of the bordereau. And now to turn to Commandant Esterhazy. His
own statement is this. In the month of October, 1897, when in the
country, he received a letter from 'Speranza' giving minute
details of a plot against himself, the instigator of which
was, Speranza said, a colonel named Picquart (without the c).
He at once went to Paris, saw the Minister of War, and gave
him Speranza's letter. Shortly afterwards he received a
telegram asking him to be behind the palisades of the bridge
Alexander III. at 11.30 p.m. He would there meet a person who
would give him important information. He kept his appointment,
met a veiled woman, who, first binding him over under oath to
respect her incognito, gave him long details of the plot of
the 'band' against himself. Afterwards he had three similar
interviews, but not at the same place. At the second of these
four interviews the unknown woman gave him a letter,
saying:—'Prenez la pièce contenue dans cette enveloppe, elle
prouve votre innocence, et si le torchon brûle, n'hésitez pas
it vous en servir.' ['Take the piece contained in this
envelope, it proves your innocence, and if there is trouble do
not hesitate to use it.'] This document, henceforward called
'le document libérateur,' was no other than the letter
referred to in the 'Eclair' (ce canaille de D.), which, of
course, ought to have been safe in the archives of the
Intelligence Department. On November 14 Commandant Esterhazy
returned this document to the Minister of War under a covering
letter in which he called upon his chief to defend his honour
thus menaced. The Minister of War sent Commandant Esterhazy a
receipt. The next day the Minister received a letter from M.
Matthieu Dreyfus denouncing Commandant Esterhazy as the author
of the bordereau. The letter of Speranza to Commandant
Esterhazy has not yet been divulged to the public; and the War
Office, after diligent inquiries, have not been able to find
the veiled woman. Very different was the interpretation put on
this narrative by M. Trarieux, ex-Minister of Justice, and
others interested in revision. Their suggestion was that
Commandant Esterhazy was in the first instance apprised
beforehand by his friends in the War Office of the coming
danger and was for flying across the frontier, but that
subsequently these same friends, finding that the chiefs of
the army were fearful of being compromised by his flight from
justice and would make common cause with him, wished to recall
him, and with this view, took from the archives the 'document
libérateur,' and sent it to him as an assurance that he might
safely return and stand his trial, and also with a view to his
claiming the credit of having restored to the office a
document which it was now intended to charge Colonel Picquart
with abstracting. On November 16, 1897, on a question being
asked in the Chamber, General Billot, Minister of War, replied
that he had made inquiries, and the result 'n'ébranlait
nullement dans lion esprit l'autorité de la chose jugée,' but
that as a formal denunciation of an officer of the army had
been made by the 'famille Dreyfus,' there would be a military
investigation. A fortnight or so afterwards he 'repeated that
the Government considered the 'affaire Dreyfus comme
régulièrement et justement jugée.' Here, as elsewhere, the
reader will remember that the question at issue was who was
the author of the bordereau, and that if Captain Dreyfus was,
Commandant Esterhazy could not be. Consequently, a public
declaration by the Minister of War that Captain Dreyfus had
been justly condemned was as much as to say that Commandant
Esterhazy must be acquitted. … Commandant Esterhazy was
acquitted.
"On the morrow of Commandant Esterhazy's acquittal M Zola
launched his letter of January 13, 1898, which was addressed
to the President, of the Republic, and wound up with a series
of formal accusations attributing the gravest iniquities to
all concerned in either of the Courts-martial, each officer
being in turn pointedly mentioned by name. M. Zola's avowed
object was to get himself prosecuted for defamation and so
obtain an opportunity for bringing out 'la lumière' on the
whole situation. The Minister of War so far accepted the
challenge as to institute a prosecution at the Assizes; but
resolving to maintain the 'chose jugée' as to the 'affaire
Dreyfus,' he carefully chose his own ground so as to avoid
that subject, selecting from the whole letter only 15 lines as
constituting the defamation.
{229}
In particular as to one sentence, which ran:—['J'accuse enfin
le Premier Conseil de Guerre d'avoir violé le droit en
condamnant un accuse sur une pièce restée secrète, et]
j'accuse le Second Conseil de Guerre d'avoir couvert cette
illegalité par ordre, en commettant à son tour le crime
juridiquc d'acquitter sciemment un coupable'; ['I accuse,
finally, the first Court-martial of having violated the law in
its conviction of the accused on the strength of a document
kept secret; and I accuse the second Court-martial of having
covered this illegality, acting under orders and committing in
its turn the legal crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty
person.']
"The prosecution omitted the first half of the sentence, the
part within brackets. By French law it is for the defendants
to justify the defamatory words assigned, and to prove their
good faith. But this was a difficult task even for M. Labori,
the counsel for M. Zola. There were several notable obstacles
to be passed before light could reach the Court:
1. The 'chose jugée' as applicable to the 'affaire Dreyfus.'
2. The 'huis clos'; the whole proceedings at the Dreyfus
trial, and all the more important part of the proceedings at
the Esterhazy trial, having been conducted within closed
doors.
3. The 'secret d'Etat' excluding all reference to foreign
Governments.
4. The 'secret professionnel,' pleaded not only by officers
civil and military, but even by the experts employed by the
Court for the identification of handwriting.
5. To these may be added the unwillingness of a witness for
any reason whatever.
Thus Colonel Du Paty de Clam was allowed to refuse to answer
questions as to his conduct in family affairs; and, as for
Commandant Esterhazy, he turned his back on the defendants and
refused to answer any question whatever suggested by them,
although it was put to him by the mouth of the Judge. … Of the
above-mentioned obligations to silence, three were such as it
was within the competence of the Government to dispense from.
No dispensation was given, and hence it was that the Minister
of War was seen as prosecutor pressing his legal right to call
upon the defendants, under pain of conviction, to prove the
truth of the alleged libel, and at the same time, by the
exercise or non-exercise of his official authority, preventing
the witnesses for the defence from stating the facts which
were within their knowledge and most material to the truth.
But the 'chose jugée' was a legal entity by which was meant
not merely that the sentence could not be legally disputed,
but that it was to be accepted as 'la vérité légale'; no word
of evidence was to be admitted which in any way referred to
any part of the proceedings—the whole affair was to be
eliminated. The bar thus raised was very effectual in shutting
out of Court large classes of witnesses who could speak only
to the 'affaire Dreyfus' … whatever was the rule as to the
'chose jugée,' it should have been enforced equally on both
parties. This was not always the case. One single example of
the contrary shall be given, which, as will be shown
hereafter, events have proved to be of the utmost
significance. General de Pellieux had completed his long
evidence, but having received from 'a Juror' a private letter
to the effect that the jury would not convict M. Zola unless
they had some further proof of the guilt of Captain Dreyfus,
on a subsequent day he asked leave to make a supplementary
deposition and then said:—
"'Au moment de l'interpellation Castelin [i. e., in 1896] it
s'est produit un fait que je tiens à signaler. On a eu au
Ministère de la Guerre (et remarquez que je ne parle pas de
l'affaire Dreyfus) la preuve absolue de la culpabilité de
Dreyfus, et cette preuve je l'ai vile. Au moment de cette
interpellation, il est arrivé au Ministère de la Guerre un
papier dont l'origine ne peut être contestée, et qui dit—je
vous dirai ce qu'il y a dedans—"Il va se produire une
interpellation sur l'affaire Dreyfus. Ne dites jamais les
relations que nous avons eues avec ce juif."' ['At the time of
the Castelin interpellation (1896) there was a fact which I
want to point out. The Ministry of War held—remark that I am
not speaking of the Dreyfus case—absolute proof of the guilt
of Dreyfus; and this proof I have seen. At the moment of that
interpellation there arrived at the Ministry of War a paper
the origin of which is incontestable, and which says,—I will
tell you what it says,—"There is going to be an interpellation
about the Dreyfus affair. You must never disclose the
relations which we had with that Jew."'] And General de
Pellieux called upon General de Boisdeffre and General Gonse
to confirm what he said, and they did so. But when M. Labori
asked to see the document and proposed to cross-examine the
generals upon it, the Judge did not allow him, 'Nous n'avons
pas à parler de l'affaire Dreyfus.' It may be conceived what
effect such a revelation, made by the chiefs of the French
army in full uniform, had upon the jury. They pronounced M.
Zola guilty and found no extenuating circumstances; and he was
sentenced by the Judge to the maximum penalty, viz.,
imprisonment for a year and a fine of 3,000 francs.
"On April 2 the Zola case is brought up before the Court of
Cassation [the French Court of Appeals] and the Court quashes
the verdict of the Assizes, on the technical ground that the
prosecution had been instituted by the wrong person. The
Minister of War was incompetent to prosecute; the only persons
competent were those who could allege they had been defamed—
in this instance the persons constituting the Esterhazy
Court-martial. … The officers who had sat at the Esterhazy
Court-martial were then called together again in order to
decide whether M. Zola should be reprosecuted. To put a stop
to any unwillingness on their part, M. Zola published in the
'Siècle' of April 7 a declaration of Count Casella, which the
Count said he would have deposed to on oath at the former
trial if the Judge had allowed him to be a witness. This
declaration gave a detailed history of various interviews in
Paris with Count Panizzardi, the military attaché at the
Italian Embassy, and at Berlin with Colonel von Schwarzkoppen,
who had been the military attache at the German Embassy.
According to Count Casella, both these officers had declared
positively to him that they had had nothing to do with Captain
Dreyfus, but Colonel von Schwarzkoppen much with Commandant
Esterhazy. It will be said that this declaration of Count
Casella had not been sifted by cross-examination; but it is
understood that at the end of 1896, immediately after the
'Éclair' made the revelation of 'le document libérateur,' both
the German and Italian Governments made a diplomatic
representation to the French Government, denying that they had
had anything to do with Captain Dreyfus.
{230}
At all events, in January, 1898, official denials had been
publicly made by the German Minister of Foreign Affairs to the
Budget Commission of the Reichstag and by the Italian
Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Parliament at Home.
The officers of the Court-martial resolve to reprosecute, and
the case is fixed for the May Assizes at Versailles. When the
case comes on, M. Zola demurs to its being tried outside
Paris; the demurrer is overruled by the Court of Cassation,
and ultimately, on July 18, the case comes on again at the
Versailles Assizes. The charge, however, is now cut down from
what it had been on the first trial in Paris. Of the whole
letter of M. Zola now only three lines are selected as
defamatory—viz.:—'Un conseil de guerre vient par ordre d'oser
acquitter un Esterhazy, soufflet suprême à toute vérité, à
toute justice.' ['The Court-martial has by order dared to
acquit an Esterhazy, supreme blow to all truth, to all
justice.'] This selection was manifestly designed to shut out
any possibility of reference to the 'affaire Dreyfus,' and M.
Labori, finding that any attempt to import it would be vain,
allowed the case to go by default, and M. Zola was condemned
and, as before, sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a fine
of 3,000f. He has appealed to the Com de Cassation, and the
appeal may be heard in the course of the autumn. To secure his
own liberty in the meantime, M. Zola has avoided personal
service of the order of the Assizes by removing beyond the
frontier.
"We will now go back to Colonel Picquart. During the year 1897
he had become aware that in the Intelligence Department
suspicions were expressed that the 'petit-bleu' was not a
genuine document and insinuations made that Colonel Picquart
had forged it. … The ground on which this imputation was
rested came out clearly in the evidence which was given
subsequently in the Zola trial, to which reference may now be
made. The sweepings of Colonel von Schwarzkoppen's basket had
been brought by a spy to the Intelligence Department, and were
given first into the hands of Commandant Henry, who put them into
a packet or 'cornet' and passed them on to Colonel Picquart to
examine. Colonel Picquart swore that on examination he had
found amongst the papers a large number of fragments, fifty or
sixty. These he gave to Commandant Lauth to piece together and
photograph. When pieced together they were found to constitute
the 'petit-bleu' addressed to Commandant Esterhazy, who at
that time was a perfect stranger to Colonel Picquart. At the
Zola trial Colonel Henry had sworn that the pieces were not in
the 'cornet' when he gave it, to Colonel Picquart, and the
insinuation was that Colonel Picquart had forged the document,
torn it in pieces, and put the pieces into the 'cornet.' …
Commandant Esterhazy was acquitted by the Court-martial, and
on the very next day Colonel Picquart was himself summoned to
submit to a military inquiry. The Court-martial sat with
closed doors, so that neither the charges nor the proceedings
nor the findings would be known to the public, but the
findings have found their way into the newspapers. [Picquart,
cleared himself on the main charges.] … But as to the charge
(which had never been disputed) that in 1897 Colonel Picquart
had communicated General Gonse's letters to M. Leblois, this
the Court found to be proved; and for this military offence
Colonel Picquart was removed from the army upon a pension of a
little more than 2,000f., or £80, per annum. Other
chastisements have followed. …
"We now come to the famous declaration of July 7 (1898), made
by M. Cavaignac, Minister of War. On an interpellation by M.
Castelin, the Minister of War replied that hitherto the
Government had respected the 'chose jugée,' but now
considerations superior to reasons of law made it necessary
for them to bring before the Chamber and the country all the
truth in their possession, the facts which had come to confirm
the conviction of Captain Dreyfus. He made this declaration
because of the absolute certainty he had of his guilt. He
based his declaration first on documents in the Intelligence
Department, and then on Captain Dreyfus's own confessions. The
latter will here be dealt with first. The Minister relied on
two witnesses. One was Captain d'Attel, who on the day of
Captain Dreyfus's resignation had told Captain Anthoine that
Captain Dreyfus had just said in his presence, 'As to what I
have handed over, it was worth nothing. If I had been let
alone I should have had more in exchange.' Captain Anthoine
had, according to the Minister, immediately repeated these
words to Major de Mitry. But Captain d'Attel is dead, and M.
Cavaignac did not state to the Chamber at what date or on
whose authority this information came to the War Office. The
other witness was a Captain Lebrun-Renault, still alive, who
had acted as captain of the escort on the day of degradation,
January 5, 1895. … The Minister omits to specify the date at
which Captain Lebrun-Renault first communicated to the War
Office. It is believed to be in November, 1897; and against
these allegations may be set the testimony of Commandant
Forzinetti, the governor of the prison in which Captain
Dreyfus was confined, to the effect that there is no record of
confession in the official report made at the time by Captain
Lebrun-Renault, as Captain of the escort, and that within the
last year the Captain had denied to him (Commandant
Forzinetti) that there had been any confession. Further we
know that throughout his imprisonment before trial, at the
trial, at the scene of his degradation, and in his letter
written immediately afterwards to his wife, and to the
Minister of War, Captain Dreyfus protested his innocence and
that he had never committed even the slightest imprudence.
"Then as to the documents confirmatory of the conviction of
Captain Dreyfus. M. Cavaignac did not say whether by this term
'guilt' be meant that Captain Dreyfus had been guilty of
writing the bordereau, or had been guilty otherwise as a
traitor. Indeed it was remarked that he never so much as
mentioned the bordereau. Was, then, the bordereau dropped, as
a document, no longer recognized to be in the handwriting of
Captain Dreyfus? But he informed the Chamber that the
Intelligence Department had during the last six years
accumulated 1,000 documents and letters relating to espionage,
of the authorship of which there was no reasonable doubt.
{231}
He would call the attention of the Chamber to only three, all
of which, he said, had passed between the persons who had been
mentioned (Colonel von Schwarzkoppen and M. Panizzardi). Here
again it was noticed that the 'document libérateur' (ce
canaille de D.) was not mentioned. Had this, too, been dropped
as no longer to be relied upon, because' D.' did not mean
Dreyfus, or was it now omitted because it had been produced at
the Court-martial by General Mercier and therefore could not
be said to be confirmatory of his conviction? Of the three
documents which M. Cavaignac specified, the first, dated in
March, 1894, made reference to a person indicated as D.; the
second, dated April 16, 1894, contained the expression 'cette
canaille de D.,' the same as that used in the 'document
libérateur.' The third was no other than 'la preuve absolue'
which General de Pellieux had imported into his evidence in
the Zola trial as having been in the hands of the Government
at the time of the Castelin interpellation in November, 1896.
M. Cavaignac read out its contents, of which the following is
an exact transcript:—'J'ai lu qu'un député va interpeller sur
Dreyfus. Si—je dirai que jamais j'avais des relations avec ce
Juif. C'est entendu. Si on vous demande, dites comme ça, car il
faut pas que on sache jamais personne ce qui est arrivé avec
lui.' ['I read that a deputy is going to question concerning
Dreyfus. I shall say that I never had relations with that Jew.
If they ask you, say the same, for it is necessary that we
know no one who approaches him.'] M. Cavaignac went on to say
that the material authenticity of this document depended not
merely on its origin, but also on its similarity with a
document written in 1894 on the same paper and with the same
blue pencil, and that its moral authenticity was established
by its being part of a correspondence exchanged between the
same persons in 1896. 'The first writes to the other, who
replies in terms which left no obscurity on the cause of their
common uneasiness.' The Chamber was transported with the
speech of the Minister of War, and, treating it as a 'coup de
grâce' to the 'affaire Dreyfus,' decreed by a majority of 572
to two that a print of it should be placarded in the 36,000
communes of France. On the next day Colonel Picquart wrote a
letter to the Minister of War undertaking to prove that the
first two documents had nothing to do with Captain Dreyfus,
and that the third, 'la preuve absolue,' was a forgery. Within
six weeks his words as to 'la preuve absolue' come true. On
August 31 the public are startled with the announcement that
Colonel Henry has confessed to having forged it himself, and
has committed suicide in the fortress Mont Valérien, being
found with his throat cut and a razor in his left hand. The
discovery of the forgery was stated to have arisen from a
clerk in the Intelligence Department having detected by the
help of a specially strong lamp that the blue paper of 'la
preuve absolue' was not identical with the blue paper of a
similar document of 1894 which M. Cavaignac had relied upon as
a proof of its material authenticity. … As a sequel to this
confession, General de Boisdeffre, chief of the staff, has
resigned, feeling he could not remain after having placed
before the Minister of War as genuine a document proved to be
a forgery. Commandant Esterhazy has been removed from the
active list of the army, having been brought by M. Cavaignac
before a Court-martial sitting with closed doors—his offence
not disclosed, but conceived to be his anti-patriotic
correspondence with a Mme. de Boulancy. A like fate has
befallen Colonel Du Paty de Clam from a similar Court-martial
instituted by M. Cavaignac's successor, his offence likewise
not disclosed, but presumed to be improper communication of
official secrets to Commandant Esterhazy. …
"However, notwithstanding the confession of Colonel Henry, M.
Cavaignac insisted that Captain Dreyfus was guilty, and
refused consent to revision. The Cabinet not acceding to this
view, M. Cavaignac resigns the Ministry of War, and is
succeeded by General Zurlinden, then military Governor of
Paris. General Zurlinden asks first to be allowed time to
study the dossier, and after a week's study and communication
with the War Office staff he also declares his opposition to
revision, retires from the Ministry of War, and resumes his
post of Governor of Paris. With him also retires one other
member of the Cabinet. Then the Minister of Justice takes the
first formal step in referring the matter to a legal
Commission, the technical question at issue appearing to be
whether the confession by Colonel Henry—a witness in the
case—of a forgery committed by him subsequently to the
conviction with a view to its confirmation might be considered
either as a new fact in the case or as equivalent to a
conviction for forgery, so as to justify an application to the
Cour de Cassation for revision. The Commission were divided in
opinion, and the matter would have fallen to the ground if the
Cabinet had not decided to take the matter into their own
hands and apply to the Court direct. This has now been done;
the Court is making preliminary inquiries, and will then
decide whether revision in some form may be allowed or a new
trial ordered.
"With regard to Colonel Picquart, his public challenge of the
documents put forward in the speech of the Minister of War was
followed three days afterwards by an order of the Cabinet
directing the Minister of War to set the Minister of Justice
in motion with a view that he should be criminally prosecuted
in a non-military Court for communication of secret
documents—the same offence as that for which he had been
punished by the Court-martial early in the year by removal
from the active list of the army—and M. Leblois was to be
prosecuted with him as an accomplice. On the 13th of July
Colonel Picquart is put into prison to await his trial, M.
Leblois being left at large. The prison was a civil prison,
where he was allowed to communicate with his legal advisor.
… On September 21 Colonel Picquart is taken from his prison to
the Court for his trial. The Government Prosecutor rises and
asks for an indefinite postponement on the ground that the
military authorities are about to bring him before a military
Court for forgery. … The military prosecution for forgery was
ordered, and on the strength of it the Correctional Court
acceded to the application for indefinite postponement of the
other case of which it was seised; the military authorities

claimed to take the prisoner out of the hands of the Civil
authorities, and the Correctional Court acquiesced. Then it
was that Colonel Picquart broke out—'This, perhaps, is the
last time my voice will be heard in public. It will be easy
for me to justify myself as to the petit-bleu. I shall perhaps
spend to-night in the Cherche-Midi (military) Prison, but I am
anxious to say if I find in my cell the noose of
Lemercier-Picard, or the razor of Henry, it will be an
assassination. I have no intention of committing suicide.' The
same or the next day Colonel Picquart was removed to the
Cherche-Midi Prison, there to await his Court-martial, which
is not expected yet for some weeks. He is not permitted to
communicate with his legal advisor or anyone else."
G. Lushington,
The Dreyfus Case
(London Times, October 13, 1898).
{232}
Late in October (1898) the Court of Cassation decided that it
found ground for proceeding to a supplementary investigation
in the case of Captain Dreyfus, but not for the suspension
meantime of the punishment be was undergoing. On the 15th of
November it decided that the prisoner should be informed by
telegraph of the pending revision proceedings, in order that
he might prepare his defense. The Court was now endeavoring to
secure possession of the secret documents (known as the
"Dreyfus dossier") on which the conviction of the accused was
said to have been really founded. For some time the war office
seemed determined to withhold them; but at length, late in
December, the dossier was turned over, under pledges of strict
secrecy as to the documents contained. Showing still further a
disposition to check the doings of the military authorities,
the Court of Cassation, in December, ordered a suspension of
proceedings in the military court against Colonel Picquart,
and demanded all documents in his case for examination by
itself.
Attacks were now made on the Court which had thus ventured to
interfere with the secret doings of the army chiefs. Suddenly,
on the 8th of January (1899), the president of the civil
section of the Court, M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire, resigned his
office and denounced his recent colleagues as being in a
conspiracy to acquit Dreyfus and dishonor the army. This, of
course, was calculated to stimulate anti-Dreyfus excitement
and furnish ground for challenging the final decision of the
Court, if it should be favorable to a new trial for the
imprisoned Captain. It also delayed proceedings in the case,
leading to the enactment of a law requiring all cases of
revision to be tried by the united sections of the Court of
Cassation. This act took the Dreyfus case from the 16 judges
of the criminal section and committed it to the whole 48
judges of the Court.
Major Esterhazy had taken refuge in England. On the 2d of June
he went to the office of the London "Chronicle" and made the
following confession for publication: "The chiefs of the army
have disgracefully abandoned me. My cup is full, and I shall
speak out. Yes, it was I who wrote the bordereau. I wrote it
upon orders received from Sandherr. They (the chiefs of the
general staff) will lie, as they know how to lie; but I have
them fast. I have proofs that they knew the whole thing and
share the responsibility with me, and I will produce the
proofs." Immediately it was said that he had been bribed by
the friends of Dreyfus to take the crime upon himself.
On the day following this confession, the decision of the
Court of Cassation was announced. Meantime, the newspaper
"Figaro" had, by some means, been able to obtain and publish
the testimony which the Court had taken with closed doors, and
had thus revealed the flimsiness and the contradictoriness of
the grounds on which the officers of the Army Staff based
their strenuous assertions that they had positive knowledge of
the guilt of Dreyfus. This had great influence in preparing
the public mind for the decision of the Court when announced.
On grounds relating to the bordereau, to the document which
contained the expression "ce canaille de D.," and to the
alleged confession of Dreyfus,—leaving aside all other
questions of evidence,—the judgment as delivered declared that
"the court quashes and annuls the judgment of condemnation
pronounced on December 22, 1894, against Alfred Dreyfus by the
first court-martial of the Military Government of Paris, and
remits the accused to the court-martial of Rennes, named by
special deliberation in council chamber, to be tried on the
following question:—Is Dreyfus guilty of having in 1894
instigated machinations or held dealings with a foreign power
or one of its agents in order to incite it to commit
hostilities or undertake war against France by furnishing it
with the notes and documents enumerated in the bordereau? and
orders the prescribed judgment to be printed and transcribed
on the registers of the first court-martial of the Military
Government of Paris in the margin of the decision annulled."
Captain Dreyfus was taken immediately from his prison on
Devil's Island and brought by a French cruiser to France,
landing at Quiberon on the 1st of July and being taken to
Rennes, where arrangements for the new military trial were
being made.
The new court-martial trial began at Rennes on the 7th of
August. When it had proceeded for a week, and had reached what
appeared to be a critical point—the opening of a
cross-examination of General Mercier by the counsel for
Dreyfus—M. Labori, the leading counsel for the defense, was
shot as he walked the street, by a would-be assassin who
escaped. Fortunately, the wound he received only disabled him
for some days, and deprived the accused of his presence and
his powerful service in the court at a highly important time.
The trial, which lasted beyond a month, was a keen
disappointment in every respect. It probed none of the
sinister secrets that are surely hidden somewhere in the black
depths of the extraordinary case. In the judgment of all
unimpassioned watchers of its proceeding, it disclosed no
proof of guilt in Dreyfus. On the other hand, it gave no
opportunity for his innocence to be distinctly shown.
Apparently, there was no way in which the negative of his
non-guiltiness could be proved except by testimony from the
foreign agents with whom he was accused of having treasonable
dealings: but that testimony was barred out by the court,
though the German and Italian governments gave permission to
the counsel for Dreyfus to have it taken by commission.
Outside of France, at least, the public verdict may be said to
have been unanimous, that the whole case against Captain
Dreyfus, as set forth by the heads of the French army, in
plain combination against him, was foul with forgeries, lies,
contradictions and puerilities, and that nothing to justify
his condemnation had been shown. But the military court, on
the 9th of September, by a vote of five judges against two,
brought in a verdict of Guilty, with "extenuating
circumstances" (as though any circumstances could extenuate
the guilt of an actual crime like that of which Dreyfus was
accused), and sentenced him to imprisonment in a fortress for
ten years, from which term the years of his past imprisonment
would be taken out.
{233}
Mr. G. W. Steevens, the English newspaper correspondent, who
attended the trial and has written the best account of it,
makes the following comment on the verdict, which sums up all
that needs to be said: "In a way, the most remarkable feature
about the verdict of Rennes was the proportion of the votes.
When it had been over a few hours, and numb brains had relaxed
to thought again, it struck somebody that on the very first
day the very first motion had been carried by five to two. The
next and next and all of them had been carried by five to two.
Now Dreyfus was condemned by five to two. The idea—the
staggering idea—dropped like a stone into the mind, and spread
in widening circles till it filled it with conviction.
Everyone of the judges had made up his mind before a single
word of evidence had been heard. The twenty-seven days, the
hundred-and-something witnesses, the baskets of documents, the
seas of sweat and tears—they were all utterly wasted. … The
verdict was, naturally, received with a howl of indignation,
and to endeavour to extenuate the stupid prejudice—that at
least, if not cowardly dishonesty—of the five who voted
against the evidence is not likely to be popular with
civilized readers. Yet it may be said of them in
extenuation—if it is any extenuation—that they only did as
almost any other five Frenchmen would have done in their
place. Frenchmen are hypnotized by the case of Dreyfus, as
some people are hypnotized by religion; in its presence they
lose all mental power and moral sense." The army chiefs had
had their way; the stain of their condemnation had been kept
upon Dreyfus; but the government of France was magnanimous
enough to punish him no more. His sentence was remitted by the
President, and he was set free, a broken man.
FRANCE: A. D. 1898.
State of the French Protectorate of Tunis.
See (in this volume)
TUNIS: A. D. 1881-1898.
FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (April).
Lease of Kwangchow Wan from China.
Railway and other concessions exacted.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).
FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (April-December).
In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (May).
Demands on China consequent on the murder of a missionary.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MAY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (May-November).
General Elections.
Fall of the Ministry of M. Meline.
Brief Ministry of M. Brisson, struggling with
the Dreyfus question.
Coalition Cabinet of M. Dupuy.
General elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were held
throughout France on Sunday, May 8, with a second balloting on
Sunday, May 22, in constituencies where the first had resulted
in no choice. Of the 584 seats to be filled, the Progressive
Republicans secured only 225, so that the Ministry of M.
Méline could count with no certainty on the support of a
majority in the Chamber. It was brought to a downfall in the
following month by a motion made by M. Bourgeois, in the
following words: "The Chamber determines to support only a
Ministry relying exclusively on a Republican majority." This
was carried by a majority of about fifty votes, and on the
next day the Ministry resigned. It was succeeded by a Radical
cabinet, under M. Henri Brisson, after several unsuccessful
attempts to form a Conservative government. By announcing that
it would not attempt to carry out a Radical programme in some
important particulars, the Brisson Ministry secured enough
support to maintain its ground for a time; but there were
fatal differences in its ranks on the burning Dreyfus
question, as well as on other points. M. Cavaignac, Minister
of War, was bitterly opposed to a revision of the Dreyfus
ease, which the Premier and M. Bourgeois (now Minister of
Public Instruction) were understood to favor. M. Cavaignac
soon placed himself in an extremely embarrassing position by
reading to the Chamber certain documents which he put forward
as absolute proofs of the guilt of Dreyfus, but of which one
was shown presently to have been forged, while another had no
relation to the case. He accordingly resigned (September 4),
and General Zurlinden took his place. But Zurlinden, too,
resigned a few days later, when a determination to revise the
trial of Dreyfus was reached. The government was then exposed
to a new outburst of fury in the anti-Dreyfus factions, and
all the enemies of the Republic became active in new
intrigues. The Orleanists bestirred themselves with fresh
hopes, and the old Boulangist conspirators revived their
so-called Patriotic League, with M. Déroulède at its head. At
the same time dangerous labor disturbances occurred in Paris,
threatening a complete paralysis of railway communications as
well as of the industries of the capital. The Ministry faced
its many difficulties with much resolution; but it failed of
support in the Chamber, when that body met in October, and it
resigned. A coalition cabinet was then formed, with M. Charles
Dupuy in the presidency of the council, and M. de Freycinet as
Minister of War.
FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (June).
The Sugar Conference at Brussels.
See (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (September-November).
The Nile question with England.
Marchand's expedition at Fashoda.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899.
Demands upon China for attacks on Missions in Szechuan.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899 (JUNE-JANUARY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899.
Demand on China for extension of settlement at Shanghai.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899.
FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899 (June-June).
Convention with England defining possessions in West
and North Africa.
The great Empire in the Sudan and Sahara.
See (in this volume)
NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.
FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (February-June).
Death of President Faure.
Election of President Loubet.
Revolutionary attempts of "Nationalist" agitators.
The Ministry of M. Waldeck-Rousseau.
Felix Faure, President of the French Republic, died suddenly
on the 16th of February,—a victim, it is believed, of the
excitements and anxieties of the Dreyfus affair. The situation
thus produced was so sobering in its effect that the
Republican factions were generally drawn together for the
moment, and acted promptly in filling the vacant executive.
{234}
The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies were convened in joint
session, as a National Assembly, at Versailles, on the 18th,
and Emile Loubet, then President of the Senate, was chosen to
the presidency of the Republic on its first ballot, by 483
votes, against 279 for M. Meline, and 45 for M. Cavaignac. At
the funeral of the late President Faure, which occurred on the
23d, the pestilential Déroulède and his fellow
mischief-makers, with their so-called "League of Patriots,"
"League de Patrie Française," and party of "Nationalists,"
attempted to excite the troops to revolt, but without success.
Déroulède and others were arrested for this treasonable
attempt. During some months the enemies of the Republic were
active and violent in hostility to President Loubet, and the
cabinet which he inherited from his predecessor was believed
to lack loyalty to him. On the 4th of June, while attending
the steeple-chase races at Auteuil, he was grossly insulted,
and even struck with a cane, by a party of young royalists,
the leader of whom, Count Christiani, who struck the shameful
blow, was sentenced afterwards to imprisonment for four years.
The Ministry of the day was considered to be responsible for
these disorders, and, on the 12th of June, a resolution was
passed in the Chamber to the effect that it would support only
a government that was determined to defend republican
institutions with energy and preserve public order. Thereupon
the Ministry of M. Dupuy resigned, and a new cabinet was
formed with much difficulty by M. Waldeck-Rousseau. It
included a radical Socialist, M. Millerand, who became
Minister of Commerce, and a resolute and honest soldier, the
Marquis de Gallifet, as Minister of War. The latter promptly
cleared the way for more independent action in the government,
by removing several troublesome generals from important
commands. The new Ministry assumed the name of the "Government
of Republican Defense," and offered a front to the enemies of
the Republic which plainly checked their attacks. M. Déroulède
and some of his fellow conspirators were brought to trial
before the Court of Assizes, and acquitted.
FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (May).
New Convention with Siam.
See (in this volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.
FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (July).
Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1901.
FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (December).
Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial
policy in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1900 (August-January).
Arrest and trial of revolutionary conspirators.
In August, 1899, the government, having obtained good evidence
that treasonable plans for the overthrow of the Republic had
been under organization for several months, in the various
royalist, anti-Semitic, and so-called "Patriotic" leagues,
caused the arrest of a number of the leaders implicated, the
irrepressible Paul Déroulède being conspicuous among them. The
president of the Anti-Semitic League, M. Guérin, with a number
of his associates, barricaded themselves at the headquarters of
the League and defied arrest, evidently expecting a mob rising
in Paris if they were attacked. Serious rioting did occur on
the 20th of August; but the government prudently allowed
Guérin and his party to hold their citadel until the ending of
the excitements of the Dreyfus trial; then, on the showing of
a serious determination to take it by force, they gave
themselves up. The trial of the conspirators was begun in
September, before the Senate, sitting as a high court of
Justice, and continued at intervals until the following
January. Déroulède conducted himself with characteristic
insolence, and received two sentences of imprisonment, one for
three months and the other for two years, on account of
outrageous attacks on the Senate and on the President of the
Republic. These were additional to a final sentence to ten
years of banishment for his treasonable plotting, which he
shared with one fellow conspirator. Guérin was condemned to
ten years imprisonment in a fortified place. The remainder of
the accused were discharged with the exception of one who had
escaped arrest, and who was convicted in his absence. The
trial, wrote the Paris correspondent of the "London Times,"
"showed how strange a thing was this motley conspiracy between
men who had but one common bond of sympathy, namely, the
desire to upset the Republic,—men from whom the Bonapartist,
another variety of anti-Republican conspirators, had held
aloof. The latter fancied themselves sufficiently represented
in the conspiracy by the plebiscitary party [of Déroulède]
whose accession to office would have been tantamount to the
success of Imperialism. … The condemnation of these
conspirators of varied aspirations proved that the Nationalist
party was a mere conglomeration of ambitions which would end
in every form of violence if ever the conspirators were called
upon to share the booty. The harm that they have already done,
even before they have made themselves masters of France, shows
that the danger which they constitute to their country is
infinitely greater than the danger with which it was menaced
by Boulangism, for then at least at the moment of victory all
the ambitions would have been concentrated round a single
will, however mediocre that will, and General Boulanger would
at all events have been a rallying flag for the conspirators
visible all over France. The Nationalism condemned by the
Court in its various personifications has not even a head
around which at the moment of action the accomplices could be
grouped. It is confusion worse confounded. If it succeeded in
its aims it could only avoid at home the consequences of its
incoherent policy by some desperate enterprise abroad. The
judgment of the High Court, by restoring tranquillity in the
streets, preserved France from the dangers towards which she
was hastening, and which were increased, consciously or
unconsciously, by auxiliaries at the head of the executive
office. But owing to the verdict of the High Court France had
time to pull herself together, to breathe more easily, and to
take the necessary resolutions to secure tranquillity. The
approach of the Exhibition imposed upon everyone a kind of
truce, and M. Déroulède himself, with an imprudence of which
he is still feeling the consequences, declared that he would
return to France when once the Exhibition was over."
{235}
In a speech which he made subsequently, at San Sebastian, his
place of exile, Déroulède declared that the "coup d'état"
prepared by his party of revolutionists for the 23d of
February, 1899, on the occasion of the funeral of President
Faure (see above), was frustrated because he refused, at the
last moment, to permit it to be used in the interest of the
Duke of Orleans. "The following day," he said, "between midday
and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, a mysterious hand had upset all
the preparations made, the position of the troops, their
dislocation, their order and the officers commanding them, and
the same evening Marcel Habert and myself were arrested." The
intimation of his speech seemed to be that the hand in the
government which changed the position of the troops and upset
the revolutionary plot would not have done so if the royalists
had been taken into it.
Soon after the conclusion of the conspiracy trials, the
superior and eleven monks of the Order of the Assumptionist
Fathers, who had appeared to be mixed up in the plot, were
brought to account as an illegal association, and their
society was dissolved.
FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1901.
The Newfoundland French Shore question.
See (in this volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900.
Military and naval expenditure.
See (in this volume)
WAR BUDGETS.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900.
Naval strength.
See (in this volume)
NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (January).
Elections to the Senate.
Elections to the French Senate, on the 28th of January,
returned 61 Republicans, 6 Liberal Republicans, 18 Radicals, 7
Socialists, 4 Monarchists, and 3 Nationalists. "The Radicals
are as they were. The Socialists have just gained an entrance
to the Senate, and to this they were entitled by the large and
solid Socialist vote throughout France. The great mass of
solid and sensible Republicans have not only held their
ground, but have increased and solidified their position. The
reactionaries, whether avowed Monarchists, or supporters of
the Déroulède movement, have made one or two merely formal
gains, but have really fallen back, from the point of view of
their pretensions, and the long list of candidates they put
forward. On the whole, we may fairly say that the solid, sober
Republican vote of France has proved that it is in the ascendant.
Once more, in a deeper sense than he meant, the verdict of M.
Thiers has, for the moment at any rate, been verified,—that
France is really at bottom Left Centre. That is to say, the
nation is for progress, but for progress divested of vague
revolutionary pretensions, of mere a priori dogmas as to what
Republican progress involves. In the main the nation seems to
have supported the Government in repelling the aggressive
attacks of unbridled Clericalism, and in rejecting the
pretensions of the Army to dictate French politics. On the
other hand, the mass of the French electors do not desire a
crusade against the Roman Catholic Church, and they do not
care for an indiscriminate attack on the French Army."
The Spectator (London),
February 3, 1900.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (January-March).
The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (April-November).
The Paris Exposition.
The Paris Exposition of 1900, which exceeded all previous
"world's fairs" in extent and in the multitude of its
visitors, was formally opened on the 14th of April, but with
unfinished preparations, and closed on the 12th of November.
The reported attendance during the whole period of the
Exposition was 48,130,301, being very nearly double the
attendance at the Exposition of 1889. The total receipts of
money were 114,456,213 francs, and total expenditures
116,500,000 francs, leaving a deficit of 2,044,787 francs. But
France and Paris are thought to have profited greatly,
notwithstanding. Forty countries besides France took part in
the preparations and were officially represented. The number
of exhibitors was 75,531; the awards distributed were 42,790
in number. The buildings erected for the Exposition numbered
more than 200, including 36 official pavilions erected by
foreign governments. The ground occupied extended on each side
of the Seine for a distance of nearly two miles, comprising,
besides the quays on each side of the river, the Champ de
Mars, the Esplanade des Invalides, the Trocadero Gardens, and
part of the Champs Elysées.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (June-December).
Co-operation with the Powers in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (August).
Annexation of the Austral Islands.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRAL ISLANDS.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (September).
The centenary of the Proclamation of the French Republic.
A gigantic banquet.
On the 22d of September, the centenary of the proclamation of
the French Republic was celebrated in Paris by a gigantic
banquet given by President Loubet, accompanied by his
Ministers, to the assembled Mayors of France, gathered from
near and far. Some 23,000 guests sat down to the déjeuner, for
which a temporary structure had been prepared in the Tuileries
Gardens. It was a triumphant demonstration of the culinary
resources of Paris; but it had more important objects. It was
a political demonstration, organized by the President of the
Republic, in concert with the Cabinet of M. Waldeck-Rousseau,
as a check to certain schemes of the Paris Nationalists,
against the government. It brought the municipal
representatives of the provinces to the capital to show the
array of their feeling for the Republic against that of the
noisy demagogues of the capital. It was a striking success.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (October).
Proposal of terms for negotiation
with the Chinese government.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (December).
The Amnesty Bill.
With the object of making it impossible for the enemies of the
Republic to find such opportunity for a revival of the
dangerous Dreyfus controversy as any new trial of its issues
would give them, the French government, in December,
accomplished the passage of an amnesty bill, which purges
everybody connected with the affair, so far as legal
proceedings are concerned. The measure was strenuously opposed
by the friends of Dreyfus, Picquart and Zola, none of whom are
willing to be left unvindicated by law, nor willing to be
barred from future proceedings against some of the army staff.
It was also fought by the mischievous factions which wish to
keep the Dreyfus quarrel alive for purposes of disorderly
excitement.
{236}
The policy of the measure, from the governmental standpoint,
was thus described at the time it was pending: The Cabinet
"felt that this affair had done great injury to France, that
it was a dangerous weapon in the hands of all the conspirators
against the Republic, that no Court-martial would agree to
acquit Dreyfus, even though convinced of his innocence, and
that, in view of the futility of any attempt to secure an
acquittal, it was necessary to avoid danger to the Republic by
reopening the affair. France had already suffered irreparable
mischief from it. … The affair has falsified the judgment and
opinion of the army, so that it has no longer a clear notion
of its duty at home. In external affairs it is still always
ready to march to the defence of the country, but as to its
duties at home it is in a state of deplorable confusion. …
Considering that the Dreyfus affair has so armed the
adversaries of the Government that it cannot be sure of the
army in internal matters, the Cabinet, it is evident, could
not allow that affair to remain open and produce anarchy. On
the other hand, there was a prosecution pending against M.
Zola, who, it was clearly proved to all, was right in his
famous letter 'J'accuse.' There was a prosecution against
Colonel Picquart, who had sacrificed a brilliant future in the
defence of truth against falsehood. There was likewise a
prosecution against M. Joseph Reinach, who had accused Henry
of having been a traitor or the accomplice of a traitor. I do
not know how far Dr. Reinach had proofs of his allegations,
but these three prosecutions were so closely connected with
the Dreyfus case that, if they had been allowed to go on, that
affair, which was so dangerous to tranquillity, security, and
order, would be reopened. Now the Government will not at any
cost allow the affair to be reopened. The whole Amnesty Bill
hinges on this question. The Government agrees to amnesty
everybody except the persons condemned by the High Court, and
who continue to defy it. … It insists on these three
prosecutions being struck off the rolls of the Tribunals. This
is the whole question. Nothing else in the eyes of the
Government is essential, but it will not allow the further
serious mischief which would result from the reopening of the
affair. The Bill will not stop the civil proceedings against
MM. Zola, Picquart, and Reinach, but such proceedings do not
cause the same excitement as criminal prosecutions. If the
latter are stopped, the dangers occasioned by the confusion in
the spirit of the army will disappear, and it may then be
hoped that the excitement will calm down."
M. Zola protested vigorously against the Amnesty Bill, and, on
its passage, wrote an open letter to the President in which he
said: "I shall not cease repeating that the affair cannot
cease as long as France does not know and repair the
injustice. I said that the fourth act was played at Rennes and
that there would have to be a fifth act. Anxiety remains in my
heart. The people of France always forget that the Kaiser is
in possession of the truth, which he may throw in our face
when the hour strikes. Perhaps he has already chosen his time.
This would be the horrible fifth act which I have always
dreaded. The French Government should not for one hour accept
such a terrible contingency."
FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (December).
Award in the arbitration of French Guiana boundary
dispute with Brazil.
See (in this volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1900.
FRANCE: A. D. 1901.
The Bill on Associations.
A measure to place the Religious Orders under strict
regulations of law, and to limit their possession of property.
In a speech delivered at Toulouse on the 28th of October,
1900, the French Prime Minister, M. Waldeck-Rousseau,
announced the intention of the government to bring forward, at
the next session of the Chambers, a measure of critical
importance and remarkable boldness, being no less than the
project of a law (called in general terms a "Bill on
Associations ) for the stringent regulation and restriction of
the religious orders in France,—especially for the restriction
of their acquisition and ownership of property. Forecasting
the measure in that speech, he said: "The question is the
rendering free, and subject only to the common law, all the
associations which are in themselves lawful as regards the
safety of the State. Another object of the same Bill is to
cope with the peril which arises from the continuous
development in a Democratic society of an organism which,
according to a famous definition, the merit of which is due to
our old Parliaments, 'tends to introduce into the State under
the specious veil of a religions institution a political
corporation the object of which is to arrive first at complete
independence and then at the usurpation of all authority.' I
am filled with no sectarian spirit, but merely with the spirit
which dominated as well the policy of the Revolution as the
entire historical policy of France. The fundamental statute
determining the relations between the churches and the State
should be exactly applied so long as it has not been altered,
and we have always interpreted its spirit with the broadest
tolerance. But as things are now going, what will remain of
this pact of reciprocal guarantees? It had been exclusively
confined to the secular clergy owing hierarchic obedience to
their superiors and to the State and to questions of worship,
the preparation for ecclesiastical functions and preaching in
the churches. And, now, lo and behold, we find religious
orders teaching in the seminaries, the pulpit usurped by the
missions, and the Church more and more menaced by the chapel.
The dispersed but not suppressed religious communities cover
the territory with a close network, which has been evidenced
in a recent trial, and have been so bold as to defy the Church
dignitaries not accepting their vassalage. In pointing to the
peril of increasing mortmain threatening the principle of the
free circulation of property, it is sufficient to say that we
are influenced by no vain alarms, that the value of the real
property occupied or owned by the communities was in 1880 as
much as 700,000,000f., and that it now exceeds a milliard.
Starting from this figure, what may be the value of mortmain
personalty? Yet the real peril does not arise from the
extension of mortmain. In this country, whose moral unity has
for centuries constituted its strength and greatness, two
youths are growing up ignorant of each other until the day
when they meet, so unlike as to risk not comprehending one
another. Such a fact is explained only by the existence of a
power which is no longer even occult and by the constitution
in the State of a rival power. All efforts will be fruitless
as long as a rational, effective legislation has not
superseded a legislation at once illogical, arbitrary, and
inoperative. If we attach so much importance to a Law on
Association it is also because it involves the solution of at
least a portion of the education question. This Bill is the
indispensable guarantee of the most necessary prerogatives of
modern society."
{237}
This pre-announcement of the intentions of the government gave
rise, as it must have been intended to do, to a warm
discussion of the project in advance, and showed something of
the strength of the antagonists with whom its supporters must
make their fight. At length, late in December—a few days
before the opening of debate on the bill in the Chambers—the
attitude of the Church upon it was fully declared by the Pope,
in a lengthy interview which M. Henri des Houx, one of the
members of the staff of the "Matin," was permitted to publish
in that Paris journal. "After M. Waldeck-Rousseau's Toulouse
speech, and in presence of the Associations Bill," said the
Pope, "I can no longer keep silent. It is my Apostolic duty to
speak out. French Catholics will know that their father does
not abandon them, that he suffers with them in their trials,
and that he encourages their generous efforts for right and
liberty. They are well aware that the Pope has unceasingly
laboured in their behalf and for the Church, adapting the
means to the utility of the ends. The pilot is the judge of
the manœuvre at the bar. At one moment he seems to be tacking
before the tempest; at another he is bound to sail full
against it. But his one aim ever is to make the port. Now, the
Pope cannot consent to allow the French Government to twist
the Concordat from its real intent and transform an instrument
of peace and justice into one of war and oppression. The
Concordat [see, in volume 2, FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804]
established and regulated in France the exercise of Catholic
worship and defined, between the Church and the French State,
mutual rights and duties. The religious communities form an
integral part of the Apostolic Church as much as the secular
clergy. They exercise a special and a different mission, but
one not less sacred than that of the pastors recognized by the
State. To try to destroy them is to deal a blow at the Church,
to mutilate it, and to restrain its benefits. Such was not the
intent of the Concordat. It would be a misconstruction of this
treaty to declare illegal and to interdict whatever it was not
able to settle or foresee. The Concordat is silent as to
religious communities. This means that the regular clergy has
no share in the special rights and relative privileges granted
by the Concordat to the members of the secular ecclesiastical
hierarchy. It does not mean that religious orders are to be
excluded from the common law and put outside the pale of the
State. … There was no need of mentioning the religious
communities in the Concordat because these pious bodies were
permitted to live under the shelter of the equal rights
accorded to men and citizens by the fundamental clauses of
your Constitution. But if an exception is to be made to these
solemn declarations in the case of certain citizens it is an
iniquity towards the Church, an infraction of the intentions
of the negotiators of 1801. Look at the countries with which
the Holy See has signed no Concordat, and even at Protestant
countries like England, the United States, and many another.
Are religious communities there excluded from the liberties
recognized as belonging to other citizens? Do they not live
there without being harassed? And thither, perhaps, these
communities would take refuge, as in the evil days of the
Terror, from the iniquity of Catholic France! But since then
France has become bound by the Concordat, and she seems to
forget it. …
"Why does France figure to-day by the side of the great
nations in the concert of the Powers settling the Chinese
question? Whence have your Ministry for Foreign Affairs and
your representative in Peking the authority which gives weight
to their opinion in the assembly of plenipotentiaries? What
interest have you in the north of China? Are you at the head
there in trade and industry? Have you many traders there to
protect? No. But you are there the noblest champions of
Christian civilization, the protectors of the Catholic
missions. Your foreign rivals are envious of this privileged
situation. They are seeking to dispute your rights laid down
in treaties that assign to you the rôle of defenders of native
missions and Christian settlements. … Hitherto your
Governments had had a better notion of the importance of their
rights. It is in the name of treaties guaranteeing them that
they protested to me when the Chinese Emperor asked me to
arrange diplomatic relations directly with the Holy See. Upon
the insistence of M. de Freycinet, the then Minister, I
refused, so fearful was I that France might believe, even
wrongfully, that I wished in any way to diminish her prestige,
her influence, and her power. In the Levant, at
Constantinople, in Syria, in the Lebanon, what will remain of
the eminent position held by your Ambassador and Consuls if
France intends to renounce representing there the rights of
Christianity? …
"M. Waldeck-Rousseau, in his Toulouse speech, spoke of the
moral unity of France. Who has laboured more than I for it?
Have I not energetically counselled Catholics to cease all
conflict against the institutions which your country has
freely chosen and to which it remains attached? Have I not
urged Catholics to serve the Republic instead of combating it?
I have encountered warm resistance among them, but I believe
that their present weakness arises from their very lack of
union and their imperfect deference to my advice. The
Republican Government at least knows in what degree my
authority has been effective towards bringing about that
public peace and moral unity which is proclaimed at the very
moment when it is seriously menaced. It has more than once
thanked me. If the Pontifical authority has not been able
entirely to accomplish the union so much desired I at least
have spared no effort for it. Is there now a desire to
reconstitute the union of Catholics against the Republic? How
could I prevent this if, instead of the Republic liberal,
equitable, open to all, to which I have invited Catholics to
rally, there was substituted a narrow, sectarian Republic,
governed by an inflamed faction governed by laws of exception
and spoliation, repugnant to all honest and upright
consciences, and to the traditional generosity of France? Is
it thought that such a Republic can obtain the respect of a
single Catholic and the benediction of the Supreme Pontiff? I
still hope that France will spare herself such crises, and
that her Government will not renounce the services which I
have been able to render and can still render it.
{238}
On several occasions, for instance, and quite recently, I have
been asked by the head of a powerful State to allow disregard
of the rights of France in the East and Far East. Although
compensations were offered to the Church and the Holy See, I
resolved that the right of France should remain intact,
because it is an unquestionable right, which France has not
allowed to become obsolete. But if in your country the
religious orders, without which no Catholic expansion is
possible, are ruined and suppressed, what shall I answer
whenever such requests are renewed to me? Will the Pope be
alone in defending privileges the possessors of which prize
them so little?"
Of the seriousness of the conflict thus opening between the
French Republicans and the Roman Catholic Church there could
be no doubt.
The threatened bill was brought forward by the government and
debate upon it opened on the 15th of January, 1901. The most
stringent clauses of the measure were translated and
communicated to the "London Times" by its Paris correspondent,
as follows:
"II. Any association founded on a cause, or for an illicit
end, contrary to the laws, to public order, to good manners,
to the national unity, and to the form of the Government of
the Republic, is null and void.
"III. Any member of an association which has not been formed
for a determined time may withdraw at any term after payment
of all dues belonging to the current year, in spite of any
clauses to the contrary.
"IV. The founders of any association are bound to publish the
covenants of the association. This declaration must be made at
the prefecture of the Department or at the sub-prefecture of
the district which is the seat of the association. This
declaration must reveal the title and object of the
association, the place of meeting and the names, professions,
and domiciles of the members or of those who are in any way
connected with its administration. … The founders, directors,
or administrators of an association maintained or
reconstituted illegally after the verdict of dissolution will
be punished with a fine of from 500f. to 5,000f. and
imprisonment ranging from six days to a year. And the same
penalty will apply to all persons who shall have favoured the
assemblage of the members of the dissolved association by the
offer of a meeting place. …
"X. Associations recognized as of public utility may exercise
all the rights of civil life not forbidden in their statutes,
but they cannot possess or acquire other real estate than that
necessary for the object which they have in view. All personal
property belonging to an association should be invested in
bonds bearing the name of the owner. Such associations can
receive gifts and bequests on the conditions defined by Clause
910 of the Civil Code. Real estate included in an act of donation
or in testamentary dispositions, which is not necessary for
the working of the association, is alienated within the period
and after the forms prescribed by the decree authorizing
acceptance of the gift, the amount thereby represented
becoming a part of the association's funds. Such associations
cannot accept a donation of real estate or personal property
under the reserve of usufruct for the benefit of the donor.
"XI. Associations between Frenchmen and foreigners cannot be
formed without previous authorization by a decree of the
Conseil d'Etta. A special law authorizing their formation and
determining the conditions of their working is necessary in
the case, first of associations between Frenchmen, the seat or
management of which is fixed or emanates from beyond the
frontiers or is in the hands of foreigners; secondly, in the
case of associations whose members live in common. …
"XIV. Associations existing at the moment of the promulgation
of the present law and not having previously been authorized
or recognized must, within six months, be able to show that
they have done all in their power to conform to these
regulations."
Discussion of the Bill in the Chamber of Deputies was carried
on at intervals during ten weeks, the government defeating
nearly every amendment proposed by its opponents, and carrying
the measure to its final passage on the 29th of March, by a
vote of 303 to 220. Of the passage of the bill by the Senate
there seems to be no doubt. After disposing of the Bill on
Associations, on the 27th of March, the Chamber adjourned to
May 14.
----------FRANCE: End--------
FRANCHISE LAW, The Boer.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1899 (MAY-JUNE); and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
FRANCHISES, Taxation of public,
See (in this volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1899 (MAY).
FRANKLIN, The Canadian district of.
See (in this volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1895.
FRANZ JOSEF LAND: Exploration of.
See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1896;
1897; 1898-1899; 1900-; and 1901.
FREE SILVER QUESTION, The.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
FREE SPEECH:
Restrictions on, in Germany.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1898; and 1900 (OCTOBER 9).
FREE TRADE.
See (in this volume)
TARIFF LEGISLATION.
FREE ZONE, The Mexican.
See (in this volume)
MEXICAN FREE ZONE.
FRENCH SHORE QUESTION, The
Newfoundland.
See (in this volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.
FRENCH WEST AFRICA.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895;
and NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.
FRIARS, Spanish, in the Philippines.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (NOVEMBER).
{239}
G.
GALABAT, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896.
GALVESTON: A. D. 1900.
The city overwhelmed by wind and waves.
"The southern coast of the United States was visited by a
tropical hurricane on September 6-9, the fury of which reached
its climax at and near Galveston, Texas, 1:45 A. M., on
Sunday, the 9th. Galveston is built upon the east end of a
beautiful but low-lying island some thirty miles long and six
or seven miles wide at the point of greatest extent, though
only a mile or two wide where the city is built. The pressure
of the wind upon the waters of the Gulf was so powerful and so
continuous that it lifted the waves on the north coast many
feet above the ordinary high-tide level, and for a short time
the entire city was submerged. … The combined attack of
hurricane and tidal-wave produced indescribable horrors—the
destruction of property sinking into insignificance when
compared with the appalling loss of life. The new census taken
in June accredited Galveston with a population of 37,789. The
calamity of a few hours seems to have reduced that number by
20 per cent. The loss of life in villages and at isolated
points along the coast-line will probably bring the sum total
of deaths caused by this fatal storm up to 10,000. The
condition of the survivors for two or three days beggars
description. The water had quickly receded, and all means of
communication had been destroyed, including steamships,
railroads, telephone and telegraph lines, and public highways.
Practically all food supplies had been destroyed, and the
drinking-water supply had been cut off by the breaking of the
aqueduct pipes. The tropical climate required the most summary
measures for the disposition of the bodies of the dead. Military
administration was made necessary, and many ghoulish looters
and plunderers were summarily shot, either in the act of
robbing the dead or upon evidence of guilt. …
"Relief agencies everywhere set to work promptly to forward
food, clothing, and money to the impoverished survivors. Great
corporations like the Southern Pacific Railroad made haste to
restore their Galveston facilities, and ingenious engineers
brought forward suggestions for protection of the city against
future inundations. These suggestions embraced such
improvements as additional break-waters, jetties, dikes, and
the filling in of a portion of the bay, between Galveston and
the mainland. The United States Government in recent years has
spent $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 in engineering works to deepen
the approach to Galveston harbor. The channel, which was
formerly only 20 or 21 feet deep across the bar, is now 27
feet deep, and the action of wind and tide between the jetties
cuts the passage a little deeper every year. The foreign trade
of Galveston, particularly in cotton, has been growing by
leaps and bounds."
American Review of Reviews,
October, 1900, page 398.
GARCIA, General:
Commanding Cuban forces at Santiago.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).
GENEVA CONVENTION:
Adaptation to maritime warfare.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
GEORGE, Henry:
Candidacy for Mayor of Greater New York, and death.
See (in this volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1897 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
GERMAN ORIENT SOCIETY:
Exploration of the ruins of Babylon.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA:
GERMAN EXPLORATION.
GERMAN PARTIES, in Austria.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
----------GERMANY: Start--------
GERMANY: A. D. 1891-1899.
Recent commercial treaties.
Preparations for forthcoming treaties.
"The new customs tariff of July 15, 1879 [see, in volume 4,
TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892] exhibited the
following characteristics: An increase of the existing duties
and the introduction of new protective duties in the interests
of industrial and agricultural products. The grain and wood
duties, abolished in 1864, were reintroduced, and a new
petroleum duty was adopted. Those on coffee, wine, rice, tea,
tobacco, cattle, and textiles were raised. Those on iron were
restored; and others were placed on many new articles formerly
admitted free. In 1885 the tariff was again revised,
especially in the direction of trebling the grain and of
doubling the wood duties. Those on cattle, brandy, etc., were
raised at the same time. The year 1887 saw another general
rise of duties. But, on the other hand, some reductions in the
tariff for most-favored nations came about in 1883 and in 1889 in
consequence of the tariff treaties made with Switzerland and
Spain. Other reductions were made by the four tariff treaties
of 1891 with Belgium, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Switzerland,
and again in 1892 and 1893, when like treaties were
respectively made with Servia and Roumania. Increases in some
duties took place in 1894 and 1895, such as those on cotton
seeds, perfumes, ether, and honey. … In consequence of the
higher price, rendered possible at home from the protective
duty, the German manufacturer can afford to sell abroad the

surplus of his output at a lower price than he could otherwise
do. His average profit on his whole output is made up of two
parts: Firstly, of a rather high profit on the sales in
Germany; and, secondly, of a rather low profit on the sales
abroad. The net average profit is, however, only an ordinary
one; but the larger total quantity sold (which he could not
dispose of without the foreign market, combined with the extra
low price of sale abroad) enables him to produce the commodity
in the larger quantities at a lower cost of production than he
otherwise could if he had only the German market to
manufacture for. He thereby obtains abroad, when selling
against an Englishman, an indirect advantage from his home
protection, which stands him in good stead and is equivalent
to a small indirect benefit (which the Englishman has not) on
his foreign sales, which is, however, paid for by the German
consumer through the higher sale price at home.
{240}
"The customs tariff now in force provides one general or
'autonomous' rate of duty for all countries, from which
deviations only exist for such nations as have tariff treaties
or treaties containing the most-favored-nation clause. Such
deviations are 'treaty' or 'conventional' duties. At the
present moment treaties of one kind or another exist with most
European powers (excepting Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal)
and with the majority of extra-European countries. So that,
with few exceptions, the German Empire may now be said to
trade with the world on the basis of the lower 'conventional'
or 'treaty' tariff. Most of the tariff treaties existing in
Europe expired early in 1892, whereupon many countries
prepared higher customs tariffs in order to be prepared to
grant certain concessions reciprocally when negotiating for
the new treaties. Germany, therefore, under the auspices of
General Caprivi, set to work to make a series of special
tariff treaties with Belgium, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and
Switzerland, which were all dated December 6, 1891. Later
additions of the same class were those with Servia in 1892,
with Roumania in 1893, and with Russia in 1894.
"Perhaps almost the greatest benefit conferred upon the
country by these seven tariff treaties was the fact of their
all being made for a long period of years and not terminable
in any event before December 31, 1903. This secured for the
mercantile classes the inestimable benefit of a fixed tariff
for most of the important commodities of commerce over a long
period of time—a very valuable factor in trade, which has in
this case greatly assisted the development of commerce. The
reductions in Germany granted by these treaties were not great
except on imported grains, and those in the various foreign
countries were not very considerable either. … The
preparations for the negotiation of the new commercial
treaties which are to replace those which expire on January 1,
1904, were begun in Germany as early as 1897. Immense trouble
has been and is being taken by the Government to obtain
thoroughly reliable data on which to work, as they were by no
means content merely to elaborate a new tariff on the wide
experience already gained from the working of the seven
commercial treaties of 1891 to 1893."
Diplomatic and Consular Reports of the British Government,
January, 1899
(quoted in Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance
of the United States, January, 1899).
GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1895.
The Emperor and the Social Democrats.
His violent and autocratic speeches.
Failure of the Anti-Revolutionary Bill.
Socialist message to France.
At the opening of the winter session of the Reichstag, in
December, 1894, the Emperor, speaking in person, declared it
to be "necessary to oppose more effectually than hitherto the
pernicious conduct of those who attempt to disturb the
executive power in the fulfilment of its duty," and announced
that a bill to that end, enlarging the penal provisions of
law, would be introduced without delay. This was well
understood to be aimed at the Social Democrats, against whom
the Emperor had been making savagely violent speeches of late.
At Potsdam, in addressing some recruits of the Foot Guards, he
had gone so far as to say: "You have, my children, sworn
allegiance to me. That means that you have given yourselves to
me body and soul. You have only one enemy, and that is my
enemy. With the present Socialist agitation I may order
you,—which God forbid!—to shoot down your brothers, and even
your parents, and then you must obey me without a murmur." In
view of these fierce threatenings of the Emperor, and the
intended legislative attack upon their freedom of political
expression and action, six members of the Social Democratic
party, instead of quitting the House, as others did, before
the customary cheers for his Imperial Majesty were called for,
remained silently sitting in their seats. For that behaviour
they were not only rebuked by the president of the Reichstag,
but a demand for proceedings against them was made by the
public prosecutor, at the request of the Imperial Chancellor.
The Reichstag valued its own rights too highly to thus gratify
the Emperor, and the demand was refused, by a vote of three to
one. His Imperial Majesty failed likewise to carry the
bill—the Anti-Revolutionary Bill, as it was called—on which
he had set his heart, for silencing critical tongues and pens.
The measure was opposed so stoutly, in the Reichstag and
throughout the Empire, that defeat appeared certain, and in
May (1895) it was dropped. The Emperor did not take his defeat
quietly. Celebrating the anniversary of the battle of Sedan by
a state dinner at the palace, he found the opportunity for a
speech in which the Socialists were denounced in the following
terms: "A rabble unworthy to bear the name of Germans has
dared to revile the German people, has dared to drag into the
dust the person of the universally honoured Emperor, which is
to us sacred. May the whole people find in themselves the
strength to repel these monstrous attacks; if not, I call upon
you to resist the treasonable band, to wage a war which will
free us from such elements." The Social Democrats replied by
despatching the following telegram to the Socialists in Paris:
"On the anniversary of the battle of Sedan we send, as a
protest against war and chauvinism, our greeting and a clasp
of the hand to our French comrades. Hurrah for international
solidarity!" Prosecutions followed. The editor of "Vorwärts"
got a month's imprisonment for saying the police provoked
brawls to make a pretext for interference; Liebknecht, four,
for a caustic allusion to the Emperor's declarations against
Socialism, and for predicting the collapse of the Empire; and
Dr. Forster, three, for lèse-majesté.
GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1899.
The Emperor's claim to "Kingship by Divine Right,"
A great sensation was produced in Germany by a speech
addressed on September 6, 1894, by the German Emperor to the
chief dignitaries and nobles of East Prussia in the Royal
Palace at Königsberg. The following are the principal
passages of this speech:
"Agriculture has been in a seriously depressed state during
the last four years, and it appears to me as though, under
this influence, doubts have arisen with regard to the
fulfilment of my promises. Nay, it has even been brought home
to me, to my profound regret, that my best intentions have
been misunderstood and in part disputed by members of the
nobility with whom I am in close personal relation. Even the
word 'opposition' has reached my ears.
{241}
Gentlemen, an Opposition of Prussian noblemen, directed
against their king, is a monstrosity. Such an Opposition would
be justifiable only when the king was known to be at its head.
The history of our House teaches us that lesson. How often
have my predecessors had to oppose misguided members of a
single class on behalf of the whole community! The successor
of him who became Sovereign Duke in Prussia in his own right
will follow the same path as his great ancestor. The first
King of Prussia once said, 'Ex me mea nata corona,' and his
great son 'set up his authority as a rocher de bronze.' I, in
my turn, like my imperial grandfather, hold my kingship as by
the grace of God. … We witnessed an inspiring ceremony the day
before yesterday. Before us stands the statue of the Emperor
William, the imperial sword uplifted in his right hand, the
symbol of law and order. It exhorts us all to other duties, to
the serious combating of designs directed against the very
basis of our political and social fabric. To you, gentlemen, I
address my summons to the fight for religion, morality, and order
against the parties of revolution. Even as the ivy winds round
the gnarled oak, and, while adorning it with its leaves,
protects it when storms are raging through its topmost
branches, so does the nobility of Prussia close round my
house. May it, and with it the whole nobility of the German
nation, become a brilliant example to those sections of the
people who still hesitate. Let us enter into this struggle
together. Forward with God, and dishonor to him who deserts
his king."
Time has wrought no change in these extraordinary ideas of the
German Emperor. Speaking at Hamburg, October 19, 1899, on the
necessity of strengthening the naval forces of the Empire, in
order to afford protection to trade over the sea, he said:
"The feeling for these things is only slowly gaining ground in
the German fatherland, which, unfortunately, has spent its
strength only too much in fruitless factional strife. Germans
are only slowly beginning to understand the questions which
are important to the whole world. The face of the world has
changed greatly during the last few years. What formerly
required centuries is now accomplished in a few months. The
task of Kaiser and government has consequently grown beyond
measure, and a solution will only be possible when the German
people renounce party divisions. Standing in serried ranks
behind the Kaiser, proud of their great fatherland, and
conscious of their real worth, the Germans must watch the
development of foreign states. They must make sacrifices for
their position as a world power, and, abandoning party spirit,
they must stand united behind their prince and emperor."
Commenting on this utterance, a recent writer has said: "This
ideal of a docile nation led by a triumphant emperor whose
intelligence embraces everything throws considerable light on
the relations of imperialism to party government and
parliamentary institutions. … There are many other expressions
of the emperor which indicate an almost medieval conception of
his office, a revival of the theory of divine right. The
emperor believes that his grandfather, had he lived in the
Middle Ages, would have been canonized, and that his tomb
would have become a cynosure of pilgrimages from all parts of
the world. … In a speech delivered at Coblenz on August 31,
1897, he speaks of the 'kingship by the grace of God, with its
grave duties, its tremendous responsibility to the Creator
alone, from which no man, no minister, no parliament can
release the monarch.'"
GERMANY: A. D. 1895 (June).
Opening of the Kaiser Wilhelm Ship Canal.
The opening of the new ship canal (named the Kaiser Wilhelm
Canal) between the Baltic and the North Sea was made the
occasion of a great celebration, on the 21st of June, in which
the navies of Great Britain, Russia, France, Austria and Italy
took part, steaming in procession with the German squadron
through the canal. It was also made the occasion for an
exhibition of the newly-formed alliance between Russia and
France, the Russian and French fleets entering the harbor of
Kiel together.
See (in this volume),
FRANCE: A. D. 1895.
The canal had been eight years in building, the first spadeful
of earth in the excavation having been turned by Emperor
William I. at Holtenau, near Kiel, on the 3d of June, 1887.
The canal is thus described: It is "98.6 kilometers (61.27
miles) in length. It begins at Holtenau, on the Bay of Kiel,
and terminates near Brunsbüttel, at the mouth of the River
Elbe, thus running clear through the province of
Schleswig-Holstein from northeast to southwest. Both openings
are provided with huge locks. Near Rendsburg, there is a third
lock connecting the canal with the old Eider Canal. The medium
water level of the canal will be about equal to the medium
water level of Kiel harbor. At the lowest tide the profile of
the canal has, in a depth of 6.17 meters (20 feet 6 inches)
below the surface of the water, a navigable width of 36 meters
(118.11 feet), so as to allow the largest Baltic steamers to
pass each other. For the navy, 22 meters (72.18 feet) of canal
bottom are provided, at least 58 meters (190.29 feet) of water
surface, and 8½ meters (27 feet 9 inches) depth of water. The
greatest depth for merchant vessels was calculated at 6.5
meters (21 feet 3 inches). The estimated cost was $37,128,000.
Two-thirds of the cost is defrayed by Germany; the remaining
one-third by Russia. The time saved by a steam-ship sailing
from Kiel to Hamburg via the canal, instead of through the
Skaugh (the strait between Jutland and Sweden), is estimated
at 2, days. The time of passage through the canal, including
stoppages and delays, will be about thirteen hours. In time of
peace, the canal is to be open to men-of-war, as well as
merchant vessels of every nation, but in time of war, its use
will be restricted to vessels of the German navy. Many vessels
have been wrecked and many lives lost on the Danish and
Swedish coasts, in waters which need not be navigated after
the canal is opened to traffic. Its strategic importance to
Germany will also be great, as it will place that country's
two naval ports, Kiel on the Baltic, and Wilhelmshafen on the
North Sea, within easy access of each other."
United States Consular Report,
Number 175, page 603.
{242}
GERMANY: A. D. 1895 (June-December).
Census of the Empire and census of Prussia.
"The results of the last census of the German Empire (the
census being taken every five years in December) … have
produced some surprise in that, notwithstanding the alleged
depression of agriculture and manufactures, the tables show an
increase greater than any census since the formation of the
Empire. The population, according to the official figures, is
52,244,503, an increase since December, 1890, of 2,816,027, or
1.14 per cent increase per year. The percentages of the previous
censuses was: In 1871-1875. 1 per cent; 1875-1880, 1.14 per
cent; 1880-1895, 0.7 per cent; 1885-1890, 1.06 per cent. A
striking illustration is given by a comparison with the
figures of the French census. The increase in France for the
same period (1890-1895) was but 124,000, an annual average of
0.07 per cent of its population, and Germans see in this
proportionally smaller increase a reason for certain classes
in France entertaining a less warlike feeling toward Germany,
and thereby assuring general European peace.
"In 1871, at the foundation of the German Empire, its
population was 40,997,000. [In 1890, it was 49,428,470.] The
percentage of increase differs vastly in northern and southern
Germany. In the former, the annual increase was 1.29 per cent;
in the latter, only 0.71 per cent. This must be attributed in
a great measure to the highly developed mining industries of
the Rhineland and Westphalia, where the soil, besides its
hidden mineral wealth, is devoted to agriculture. The southern
states—Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg—being more mountainous,
offer less opportunities for agricultural pursuits and are
favored with less natural riches. It is again noticeable that
those provinces which are ultra-agrarian show a very favorable
increase. It would seem that it is not the peasant, but the
great landowner, whose condition is undesirable and that this
condition is due less to the present low prices of cereals and
the customs-revenue policy of the Government than to the
heavily mortgaged estates and lavish style of living which is
not in keeping with their revenues. … "The number of
marriages, which showed a decrease from the middle of the
eighties, has increased since 1892. An unlooked-for increase
is shown in the country population."
United States, Consular Reports,
June, 1896,
pages. 245-246.
"Some of the results of the last census of Prussia, taken on
the 14th of June, 1895, with special regard to trades and
professions, have appeared in an official journal devoted to
statistics. … The entire population of Prussia, which includes
the provinces wrested from Poland, Denmark, and Saxony, as
well as the seized Kingdom of Hanover, counts up for both
sexes on the 14th of June, 1895, 31,491,209; by the last
census (December 1, 1890), it was 29,955,281, an increase of
1,335,928, or 5.13 per cent. Of males, June 14, 1895, there
were 15,475,202; December 1, 1890, 14,702,151, an increase of
773,051; females, June 14, 1895, 16,016,007; December 1, 1890,
15,253,130, an increase of 762,877. The relatively small
surplus in Prussia of females over males, viz, 540,805, may …
be ascribed in part to the stoppage of emigration to the
United States since 1892. This affects more men than women,
since men emigrate more readily than women.
"The population of Rhineland is the largest unit in Prussia.
This year it is 5,043,979, against 4,710,391 in 1890, an
increase of 333,588; that of Silesia is 4,357,555, against
4,224,458 in 1890, an increase of only 133,097,
notwithstanding the temporary harvest hands in summer. Posen,
its neighbor province, has the lowest increase of all—about
20,000 souls. All parts of Prussia, however, show some
increase. The largest increase of population—that of Rhineland
or the Rhenish provinces (333,588)—may be safely ascribed to
the flourishing manufactures of that district, while the low
figures in Posen, Silesia, and East Prussia are due to the
depression in agriculture produced by the rivalry of the
United States, Argentina, and Australia, as well as by the
unprotected state of the laborer in his relations with the
landed proprietors.
"One of the surprises of the new census is the small increase
of Berlin's population, all the more remarkable owing to the
unprecedented increase of Berlin for the years between 1870
and 1890. It is on]y 36,288, or 2.2 per cent for the past four
years and a half. By the census of 1895, it was 1,615,082;
1890, 1,578,794; increase, 36,288."
United States, Consular Reports,
January, 1896, pages 75-76.
GERMANY: A. D. 1895-1898.
The Agrarian Protectionists and their demands.
"The depression of agriculture in Germany was the subject
which most occupied German politicians throughout the year
[1895]. The policy favoured by the Agrarian League was that
advocated by Count Kanitz, of which the following were the
chief points: (1) That the State should buy and sell the
foreign grain, flour, and meal destined for consumption in
Germany; (2) that the average selling price in Germany from
1850 to 1890 should be fixed as the selling price of grain,
and that the price of flour and meal should be determined by
the proportion they bear to the unground grain and the said
selling price, provided that the buying price is covered
thereby; while in the case of higher buying prices, the
selling prices must be proportionally raised; (3) that the
profit obtained be spent, so that a part at least equal to the
amount of the present grain duty flows into the Imperial
Treasury; (4) that steps should be taken for the accumulation
of stocks to be used in extraordinary time of need, as, for
instance, in the event of war; and (5) that a reserve should
be formed when prices are higher at home and abroad, to secure
the payment of the above-mentioned annual amount to the
Treasury. The Emperor, however, repeatedly expressed his
disapproval of this policy, and Prince Bismarck is said to
have remarked that if he were a deputy he would vote for it,
but as Chancellor he would reject it. … The Agrarians now
started an agitation all over the country in favour of Count
Kanitz's proposal, and even threatened to refuse the supplies
required for the navy if the Government should not accept it.
In March, the Emperor referred the question to the committee
of the Federal State Council, which passed a resolution
declaring the proposals of Count Kanitz for establishing a
State monopoly in cereals to be incompatible with the correct
interpretation of the present position of the State in regard
to industry and international trade, and irreconcilable with
Germany's commercial treaties."
Annual Register, 1895,
pages 256-257.
{243}
"The agrarian protectionists control the Conservative party in
Parliament completely; they are strongly represented in the
Center, or Catholic, party, and are not without a considerable
following among the National Liberals. The Antisemitic party, the
Poles, and other small parties are all infected with the
agrarian protectionist ideas. The only decided opponents, as
well as the only decided free-traders, are to be found among
the three Liberal sections and the Social Democrats. The
agrarian protectionists not only wish to annul the commercial
treaties, because these hinder them from raising the
protective duties on agricultural imports (these duties are by
no means low—for instance, 35 marks per ton on rye or wheat),
but the extreme members of the party advocate the abolition of
the gold standard and the adoption of a so-called bimetallic—in
reality a silver-standard. The most rabid among them oppose
the cutting of canals, because foreign produce would thus
enter Germany on cheaper terms. In short, the agrarian
protectionists oppose the natural evolution of all economic
progress. …
"The old Prussian feudal aristocracy (Junkerthum), forming the
pith and marrow of the agrarian movement, has never been well
off; but for the last twenty years they have suffered from the
competition with the whole world, which is felt so keenly in
all old countries, in the reduction of the rent of land. They
have sunk deeper and deeper into debt, while the standard of
material comfort has risen throughout all classes in Germany.
The 'Junker' has long since given up the hope of making both
ends meet by his own industry, and while endeavoring to raise
the rent of land by various kinds of protective measures, he
is really at the same time struggling for bread-and-butter and
upholding a tradition of political supremacy.
"No government can really satisfy these claims, and hence each
in turn is compelled, sooner or later, to oppose the agrarian
movement. However, considering the strong influence the
Prussian 'Junker' exerts in the army, in the ranks of
government officials, and at court, practical statesmen deem
it advisable to avoid any open rupture with the pack of
famished wolves."
T. Barth,
Political Germany
(American Review of Reviews, April. 1898).
GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (January).
Emperor William's congratulations to the President of the
South African Republic on the defeat of the Jameson Raid.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1896 (JANUARY).
GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (May).
The Berlin Industrial Exposition.
See (in this volume)
BERLIN INDUSTRIAL EXPOSITION.
GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (May).
Sugar bounty and sugar tax legislation.
"The sugar-tax amendment law, over which has been waged in the
German Parliament one of the longest and most determined
battles of recent years, was finally enacted as a concession
to the agrarian interest, and went into effect [May, 1896].
Its influence will be to increase the sugar production of
Germany, and, to that extent, exert a depressing effect upon
the general market and the interests of producers in other
beet-growing countries. The circumstances which have led to
the present situation are, briefly, these: From the time when
the Prussian Government began the systematic encouragement of
the beet-sugar industry down to 1887, the tax on sugar for
home consumption was calculated upon the quantity of beets
worked up by each separate factory, it being assumed that the
quantity of roots required to produce a given weight of sugar
would be uniform and invariable. The proportion adopted was 20
units of raw beet root to 1 unit of sugar, which, at the time
when the law was enacted: was approximately correct.
"But, under the stimulus of the export bounties provided by
the same law, the German beet growers and sugar makers worked
hard and intelligently to improve and increase their product.
By careful selection and cultivation, the beets were so
improved that from 12 to 14 tons of roots would yield a ton of
sugar. Great advance was also made in the machinery and
processes employed in the sugar factories, so that, as a final
result, the German Government, which paid nearly 12 cents per
cwt. bounty on all sugar exported, and charged 11 tax of the
same amount on all sugar for home consumption that could be
made from 20 cwts. of beets, found that the export bounties
completely absorbed the revenue derived from the sugar tax.
This tendency of the system had become apparent as early as
1869, and an attempt was made at that time to revise the law,
but the sugar-producing interest was powerful enough to resist
this effort. … Sugar growing still continued to be the most
profitable form of culture for German farmers, the area of
cultivation and number of sugar factories continued to
increase, loud complaints were heard against a system that
favored one class of farmers at the expense of the entire
population, and, in 1891, the Imperial Diet reduced the sugar
export bounty by half, that is, to 29.7 cents per 100
kilograms, and decreed that such bounty should entirely cease
on the 31st of July, 1897, provided that, in the meantime,
Austria, France, and other bounty-paying countries should
likewise reduce their bounties on exported sugar. Several
attempts have been made to reach such an international
agreement, but without successful result, and under cover of
this failure to secure a general reduction or abolition of
bounties, the German Agrarians have rallied and secured the
adoption of the present law, which restores the export bounty
of 1887 (59.5 cents per 220.46 pounds) and raises the tax on
sugar for home consumption from 18 marks ($4.28) to 21 marks
($4.99) per 100 kilograms, or about 2.2 cents per pound. This
increased tax will, of course, be added to the retail price of
sugar, already very high, and tend to still further retard the
increase of sugar consumption in Germany, which is now only
28.8 pounds per capita, against. 73.68 pounds per capita in
England and 77 pounds in the United States. …
"From the statistics that were brought out in the recent
debate, it appears that the whole system of beet culture and
sugar manufacture in Germany has reached a higher standard of
scientific perfection than has been attained in any other
European country. Every step, from the preparation and
fertilization of the land to the smallest detail in the
factory process, has been reduced as nearly as possible to
exact scientific methods. … Statistics were cited to prove
that the German sugar producers are safe from all European
competition and do not need the protection of an increased
export bounty; but nothing could withstand the demand of the
Agrarians, and their victory is one of the most significant
events in recent German legislation."
United States Consular Reports,
July, 1896, page 512.
See, also, (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES.
GERMANY: A. D. 1897.
Industrial combinations.
Trusts.
See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
{244}
GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (July).
Defeat in Prussia of a bill to restrict the right of
political association and meeting.
In July, the government in Prussia suffered a significant
defeat in the Prussian Landtag on an attempt to give the
police new powers for interference with political meetings and
associations. The bill was especially aimed at the Social
Democrats, enacting in its first clause that "agents of the
police authorities have power to dissolve meetings in which
anarchist or Social Democratic movements are manifest, having
for their object the overthrow of the existing order of state
or of society, and finding an expression in a manner which
endangers public security, and in particular the security of
the state." It passed the upper house overwhelmingly, but was
rejected in the lower by 209 votes to 205.
GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (July).
British notice to terminate existing commercial treaties.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE-JULY).
GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (September-December).
Demand for indemnity enforced against Hayti.
See (in this volume)
HAYTI: A. D. 1897.
GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (November-December).
Seizure and acquisition of Kiao-chau Bay.
Naval expedition to China.
Speeches of the Emperor and Prince Henry.
The murder of two German missionaries in Shantung province,
China, gave the German government a pretext, in November,
1897, for the seizure of the port of Kiao-chau, on demands for
indemnity which were not satisfied until the Chinese
government had consented to lease that port, with adjacent
territory, to Germany, for 99 years, with extensive rights and
privileges in the whole rich province of Shantung.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1897 (NOVEMBER).
To support this opening of an "imperial policy" in the East, a
German naval expedition was despatched to China, in December,
under the command of the Emperor's brother, Prince Henry, and
its departure was made the occasion for speeches by the
Emperor and Prince Henry, at a royal banquet, at Kiel, which
caused much remark, and some smiling, in Europe and America.
Said the Emperor, addressing his brother, at the end of some
remarks in a similar strain: "As a sign of imperial and of
naval power, the squadron, strengthened by your division, will
now have to act in close intercourse and good friendship with
all the comrades of the foreign fleets out there, for the
protection of our home interests against everybody who tries
to injure Germany. That is your vocation and your task. May it
be clear to every European out there, to the German merchant,
and above all, to the foreigner whose soil we may be on, and
with whom we shall have to deal, that the German Michael has
planted his shield, adorned with the eagle of the empire,
firmly on that soil, in order, once for all, to afford
protection to those who apply to him for it. May our
countrymen abroad, whether priests or merchants, or of any
other calling, be firmly convinced that the protection of the
German Empire, as represented by the imperial ships, will be
constantly afforded them. Should, however, anyone attempt to
affront us, or to infringe our good rights, then strike out
with mailed fist, and if God will, weave round your young brow
the laurel which nobody in the whole German Empire will
begrudge you."
The Prince in reply said: "Most Serene Emperor, most powerful
King and Lord, illustrious brother,—As children we grew up
together. Later on it was granted to us as men to look into
each other's eyes and stand faithfully at each other's side.
To your Majesty the imperial crown has come with thorns. I
have striven in my restricted sphere and with my scanty
strength, as man, soldier, and citizen, to help your Majesty.
We have reached a great epoch, an important epoch for the
nation—an important epoch for your Majesty and the Navy. Your
Majesty has made a great sacrifice, and has shown great favour
to myself in entrusting this command to me. I thank your
Majesty from the bottom of a loyal, brotherly and humble
heart. I well understand your Majesty's feelings. I know what
a heavy sacrifice you made in giving me so fine a command. It
is for this reason, your Majesty, that I am so much moved, and
that I so sincerely thank you. I am further deeply indebted
for the confidence which your Majesty reposes in my weak
person, and I can assure your Majesty of this—I am not allured
by hopes of winning glory or laurels, I am only animated by one
desire—to proclaim and preach abroad to all who will hear, as
well as to those who will not, the gospel of your Majesty's
anointed person. This I will have inscribed on my banner, and
will bear it wherever I go. These sentiments with which I set
out are shared by my comrades. I raise my glass and call upon
those who with me enjoy the happy privilege of being permitted
to go forth, to remember this day, to impress the person of
the Emperor on their minds, and to let the cry resound far out
into the world—Our most Serene, Mighty, Beloved Emperor, King and
Master, for ever and ever. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!"
GERMANY: A. D. 1897-1900.
Practical operation of the state system of
workingwoman's insurance.
Enlargement of its provisions.
By a series of laws enacted in 1883, 1884, and 1889, a system
of compulsory state insurance of workingmen was established in
Germany, applying in the first instance to sickness, then to
accidents, and finally becoming a pensioning insurance for old
age and permanent invalidity. These laws establish a
compulsion to be insured, but leave freedom of choice as to
the associations in which the insurance shall be maintained,
all such associations being under the surveillance of the
state. In a report from United States Consul J. C. Monaghan,
Chemnitz, made July, 1898. the practical working of the system
to that time is thus described: "Time is proving the practical
value of the German workingmen's insurance system. … The
social and economic influence of so gigantic a system must be
very great.
"The object of the system is to alleviate the sufferings of
workmen and their families: (1) In cases of sickness (sick
insurance); (2) in cases of accidents incurred at work
(accident insurance); (3) in cases of feebleness, wasting
diseases, decreased capacity to work, and old age (invalid and
old-age insurance). In cases coming under Number 1 there is
given free medical treatment; sick money—that is, money during
period of sickness with which to obtain medicine, nourishment,
etc.—or, if desired, free treatment in a hospital and support for
the family; and money, in case of death, is supplied the
family. The fund is furnished by employers and employed—the
former paying one-third, the latter two-thirds. In cases of
accident insurance the parties receive support during
convalescence, from the fourteenth week after the accident
happens.
{245}
Money is given the wounded person from the fifth week. Rents
are paid from the first day of the fourteenth week after the
accident. The rents amount to two-thirds, and in some cases to
three-fifths, of the workman's yearly salary. The fund for burial
expenses is furnished by the employers. In cases coming under
invalid and old-age insurance, the parties receive rents from
the time they are unable to work, without regard to age;
old-age rents, from the seventieth year, even if they can work
and do not draw invalid rent; and assistance against disease
so as to prevent incapacity. In case of his death or marriage,
the full sum paid by the party is returned.
"The following amounts were paid out in the years given:
Sick Accident Invalid and Old Age
insurance insurance insurance
Year.
1885-86. $23,905,005 $460,625 —
1887. 13,138,099 1,412,030 —
1888. 14,651,637 2,304,173 —
1889. 16,892,097 3,442,503 —
1890. 20,013,420 4,835,041 —
1891. 21,243,594 6,289,483 $3,643,089
1892. 22,433,499 7,696,967 5,344,742
1893. 24,269,264 9,082,984 6,700,509
1894. 23,702,063 10,539,044 8,312,475
1895. 24,947,731 11,929,940 10,221,647
1896. 26,114,026 13,602,747 12,293,533
1897. 26,207,417 15,252,301 14,161,000
Total. 257,517,856 86,847,842 60,696,997

"During the years from 1885 to 1897 employers had paid in
1,337,741,176 marks ($318,382,399), and workmen 1,173,449,805
marks ($279,281,053), a total of 2,511,190,981 marks
($597,663,452). Of this amount 1,702,184,100 marks
($405,121,816) have been paid out. Thus the workmen have
already received 528,700,000 marks ($125,830,600) more than
they have paid in. The annual amount paid out is increasing at
the rate of 15,000.000 marks ($3,570,000) per annum. The
reserve fund at the end of 1897 was, in round numbers,
850,000,000 marks ($202,500,000). For every twentieth person
of the Empire's population, one has been paid insurance.
"Besides this system, there are others by which workingmen are
aided. There are State and private insurance and pension
systems. One alone, the Miners' and Smelters' Union, paid out
in the years 1895-1897, inclusive, 320,000,000 marks
($76,160,000). From 1900 on, the annual amount to be paid out
will be upwards of 300,000,000 marks ($71,400,000), or 100
marks ($23.80) for every working-day in the year. Whether a
system which makes so much for paternalism is one to commend,
I can not say. Its effects here have been anything but bad.
Poverty, in spite of poor wages, is practically unknown."
United States Consular Reports,
September, 1898, page 51.
A revision of the accident insurance law in 1900 extended the
compulsory insurance to laborers in breweries and in the shops
of blacksmiths, locksmiths and butchers, and to window
cleaners. It raised the amount of assistance provided for the
injured in many cases, making it in some instances of
permanent, disability equal to the wages previously earned. It
also fixed more sharply the responsibility for carelessness on
the part of an employer.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898.
Lèse-majesté.
"In 1898 there were 246 convictions for 'lèse-majesté,' and
the punishments inflicted amounted to a total of 83 years
imprisonment, in addition to various terms of confinement in a
fortress."
Annual Register,
1899, page 273.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (March-December).
In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (April).
The new naval policy.
"One of the most important economic movements taking place in
Germany is the development of her maritime interests. The
mercantile marine and 'over-sea' interests had developed to
such an extent that recently the Government obtained the
consent of the nation to add largely to its navy. During the
year 1897 continuous efforts had been made to bring this
question prominently before the public, and to point out the
absolute necessity of a large increase of the navy in order to
adequately protect Germany's growing maritime interests. The
introductory statement of the bill presented to the Reichstag
in November gave great prominence to the following
considerations of general interest in connection with the new
programme, namely, that during the last twenty years the
increase of imports and exports, the rapid investment of
capital abroad, the acquisition of colonies, the flourishing
fisheries, and the rapidly increasing population had greatly
added to German 'over-sea' interests, but that at the same
time this expansion had brought with it the danger of a
conflict with the interests of foreign nations, which must be
provided against by an increase of the navy, for any injury to
these maritime interests would entail serious consequences on
the whole country.
"The bill, as eventually passed on April 10, 1898, provided
that the nonrecurring expenditure should not exceed
£20,445,000, of which £17,835,000 was to be devoted to the
construction of ships and their armaments. The German fleet
will then be brought up to a total strength of 17 battle ships
of the line, 8 coast-defense vessels, 9 large and 26 small
cruisers, besides a variety of torpedo and other small craft.
It is thought and hoped that, in consequence of the favorable
state of the revenues of the Empire, a total sum of £5,876,274
a year can easily be devoted exclusively to the annual naval
budget of the next six years, by which time the additions to
the fleet are to be completed."
United States Bureau of Statistics,
Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance,
January, 1899.
See, also, (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (JUNE).
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (April).
Withdrawal from the blockade of Crete and
the "Concert of Europe."
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1897-1899.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (June).
Elections to the Imperial Parliament, and their significance.
Elections to the Parliament of the Empire (the Reichstag) took
place in June, and resulted in the following distribution of
seats:
Conservatives, 52;
Imperialists, 22;
National Liberals, 48;
Liberal Unionists, 12;
Liberal Democrats, 29;
German Democrats, 8;
Social Democrats, 56;
Centre (Catholic), 106;
Poles, 14;
Anti-Semites, 10;
Independents, 40;
Total, 397.
{246}
"The elections as a whole show the growing power of German
manufactures and the decline of German agriculture. Germany
has become already, in far less time than it took England, a
great urban community. That appears to us the most prominent
fact in German life, and it was therefore bound to make itself
manifest in German politics. In spite of Imperial patronage,
the rural parties have lost. Both the Conservative sections
have indeed lost rather heavily; the Conservatives proper
standing in the new Reichstag at sixty-two instead of at
seventy-two, as in the Reichstag of 1893, and the Free
Conservatives at twenty instead of twenty-seven. The losses of
the National Liberals, who usually vote solidly with the
Conservatives, are smaller, but still they have lost. Though
they represent 'Particularism,' yet the Poles are a peasant
party, and they have lost, standing as they do at fourteen as
compared with nineteen in 1893. The Anti-Semites, who under
clerical guidance draw their strength largely from country
districts, have also lost. On the other hand, those parties
which have gained are the parties which hold the German
cities,—the Centre, the Radicals, and the Social Democrats.
The Centre, as we have said, represents the nascent Rhenish
and Bavarian industrialism, the Radicals have made significant
gains in Berlin, and the Social Democrats have gained in nearly
all the towns except Berlin, where they have lost seats to the
Radicals,—on what ground does not seem clear, unless it is
that the more Anarchical section, which has all along been
strong in Berlin Socialism, has rebelled against the
centralised dictatorship of the party. We imagine that the
urban professional and trading classes, dependent for their
position on the growth of industry, have mainly voted Radical,
and that the working classes have, on the whole, voted
Socialist, except in those cases where they have, as devout
Catholics, supported the Centre party. It will be seen,
therefore, that what we may call Toryism (of an extreme and
fanatical type, practically unknown in England), representing
rural proprietorial interests, has lost: and that the forces
of democracy, whether Liberal of the 'Manchester' type,
Socialist, or Catholic, but all representing the growth of
industrialism and urban life, have gained. In short, what
strikes us as the most obvious moral of the elections is that
the old forces and forms of German life are weakening, that
the ancient Conservative entrenchments are being destroyed,
and that we now have to deal with a modernised Germany.
"It may perhaps be asked why we place the Centre party in the
same category with the Radicals and Social Democrats, since
the last-named party is avowedly anti-religious, and the
Radicals are largely indifferent on the religious question. We
reply that the Centre party is essentially a democratic party,
and a party, moreover, committed to reforms only less
far-reaching than those of the Social Democrats, for whose
candidates the Catholic democratic electors have often voted
on the second ballots. The Centre party embodies to a large
extent the spirit of Bishop Ketteler of Mainz, the chief
founder of German Catholic 'Christian Socialism': its organs
in the Press are democratic in tone: and so far as the present
Pope has advanced in the direction of wide Catholic social
reform, he has had no stronger supporters than the members of
the German Centre party, with the possible exception of the
democratic American Catholic prelates, with whom the Centre
party has much in common. This being the case, it is clear
that democracy, in some or other of its varied forms, controls
a majority of votes in the Reichstag: a small majority, it is
true."
The Spectator (London),
July 2, 1898.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (June).
The Sugar Conference at Brussels.
See (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (July).
Death of Prince Bismarck.
Prince Otto van Bismarck, whose importance in German history
is comparable only with that of Charlemagne, Luther, and
Frederick the Great, died on the 31st of July, at the age of
83. Immediately upon his death his confidential secretary. Dr.
Moritz Busch, made public the full text of the letter of
resignation which Bismarck addressed to the Emperor, William
II., when he withdrew—practically dismissed—from the public
service, in 1890. It showed that the immediate cause of his
resignation was an order from the new sovereign which repealed
an arrangement established by the latter's grandfather, in 1852,
whereby a responsible ministry was created in Prussia, through
the giving of responsible authority to a prime minister at its
head. For nearly half a century that constitutional usage had
been maintained. William II. appears to have made his first
grasp at absolutism by setting it aside, and thereupon
Bismarck resigned, as he was undoubtedly expected to do.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (October-November).
The Emperor's visit to Palestine.
A journey made by the Emperor and Empress, with a large
retinue and considerable state, first to Constantinople, and
then to Palestine, in October and November, was suspected of
having some other motive than a love of travel and an interest
in seeing the Holy Land. Looked at in connection with some
other movements, it was supposed to indicate a policy aiming
at the establishment of German influence in the realm of the
Turk.
GERMANY: A. D. 1899.
Complaints from Danish Sleswick.
"It can never be anything but an encroachment and a cruelty to
insist, as is now being done in Danish North Sleswick, that
all teaching in the schools, with the exception of two
miserable hours a week of religious lessons, shall be carried
on in German, and to forbid even private instruction in the
Danish language. It can never be called anything but brutality
and meanness to punish young men who go into Danish territory
for the purpose of study by depriving their parents of their
parental rights, or by expelling innocent persons from the
country. These methods, too, are beside the purpose. The
Germans complain that Danes who have become Prussian subjects
against their will do not feel like Prussians. They are
tortured and annoyed, subjected to the most minute espionage
and the most contemptible police reports, with the persecution
connected therewith, and then it is considered amazing that
they are not changed into enthusiastic admirers of Prussia. …
The Danish language, in spite of its small area, is a language
of culture. And only the same undue self-admiration which the
Germans are in the habit of criticising in the French can look
upon the forcible extermination of Danish culture, for the
sake of spreading German, as a worthy act, an end that
justifies the means. …
{247}
"Some years ago the actors of the Royal Theatre were forbidden
to produce some innocent old vaudevilles in Sleswick towns
(although permission had already been given to the owner of a
theatre in Haderslev; indeed, they were not even allowed to
remain over night at an hotel. Intense indignation was roused
in Denmark by this narrow-minded police rule, which used as a
pretext the danger to the peace and quietness of Germany of a
scenic representation in Danish. This, however, was nothing
compared with recent events, which, however, will in South
Jutland only have a stimulating effect on the self-respect and
patriotism of the people; while in Denmark those who have
hitherto tried to bring about a better understanding between
Danes and Germans will throw up the game, and without
superfluous words take their stand on the side of the
oppressed. The Danes can and must submit to humiliations,
which the stronger nation again and again puts upon the
weaker, humiliations which itself would never stand from any
other Power. But one thing they cannot do. They cannot give up
exerting all their power to preserve their language and
culture within the Sleswick territory, which for a thousand
years has been Danish, and is so still. They would be
miserable creatures if they could. From the Danish side no
attempt has been made, nor can be made, to regain politically
what has been lost. No political agitation has been
undertaken, nor can it be undertaken, to excite the South
Jutlanders against the conditions which by ill-fate have once
been legally imposed upon them. But the alliance of hearts and
minds cannot be broken even by a great Power like Germany.
"How insecure this Prussian rule feels in North Sleswick in
spite of its mailed fist! Everything alarms it. It dares not
allow Danish actors to play an old vaudeville dating from
1830. It fears the storm of applause which would break loose
as soon as the first unimportant, but Danish, words were heard
from the stage. It feels obliged to forbid a Danish orator
from holding any discourse whatsoever on South Jutland
territory. He is not even allowed to speak on literature—not
on German literature, not even on Goethe. For one can really
never know!—One cannot be sure that the audience, in spite of
the subject being of no political significance whatever,
though even it be a German national topic, might not seize the
opportunity to applaud a speaker from Denmark. And in Heaven's
name that must not happen! On such fragile feet of clay does
the Prussian Colossus stand in Sleswick that it cannot bear a
hand-clap after a Danish lecture on Goethe. Still less can it
endure Danish reading-books and Danish song-books in the hands
of little children, or Danish colours in a lady's gown or upon
a house; Danish songs it fears even behind closed doors. What
is the use of gendarmes if not to wage war against colours and
songs? Such is the measure of the anxiety of Prussia, equipped
with all the instruments of power, as to whether German might,
German wealth, German military glory, German science and art,
and half a hundred million of German people will exercise so
great an attraction on the inhabitants of North Sleswick as
the important miniature State which bears the name of
Denmark."
G. Brandes,
Denmark and Germany
(Contemporary Review, July, 1899).
GERMANY: A. D. 1899.
Foreign interests of the German people.
United States Consul J. C. Monaghan wrote from Chemnitz in
1899:
"German economists are not exaggerating when they say this
Empire's people and capital are operating in every part of the
world. Not only Hamburg, Bremen, Stettin, Lübeck, and Kiel—i.
e., the seaport cities—but towns far inland, have invested
millions in foreign enterprises. In the Americas, North and
South, in Australia, in Asia, in a large part of Africa,
German settlements, German factories, German merchants, and
German industrial leaders are at work. Nor is it always in
settlements under the Empire's control that this influence is
strongest. In Senegambia, on the Gold Coast, the Slave Coast,
in Zanzibar and Mozambique, in Australia, Samoa, the Marshall
Islands, Tahiti, Sumatra, and South and Central America, there
are powerful commercial organizations aiding the Empire. From
Vladivostock to Singapore, on the mainland of Asia, and in
many of the world's most productive islands, the influence of
German money and thrift is felt. In Central America and the
West Indies, millions of German money are in the plantations;
so, too, in the plantations along the Gold Coast. In
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba,
Puerto Rico, Trinidad, Venezuela, Brazil, etc., German capital
plays a very important part in helping to develop the
agricultural and in some cases the manufacturing and
commercial interests. A consequence of this development is
seen in the numerous banking institutions whose fields of
operation show that German commerce is working more and more
in foreign parts. These banks look after and aid foreign
investment as well as the Empire's other commercial relations.
They help the millions of Germans in all parts of the world to
carry on trade relations, not only with the Fatherland, but
with other countries.
"These are the links in a long and very strong chain of gold

uniting the colonies with the Mother Country. Quite recently,
large quantities of German capital have been invested in
various industries. The Empire's capital in United States
railroads is put down at $180,000,000. In America, Germans
have undertaken manufacturing. They have used German money to
put up breweries, hat factories, spinning, weaving, and paper
mills, tanneries, soap-boiling establishments, candle mills,
dye houses, mineral-water works, iron foundries, machine
shops, dynamite mills, etc. Many of these mills use German
machinery, and not a few German help. The Liebig Company, the
Chilean saltpeter mines, the Chilean and Peruvian metal mines,
many of the mines of South Africa, etc., are in large part
controlled by German money and German forces. Two hundred
different kinds of foreign bonds or papers are on the Berlin,
Hamburg, and Frankfort exchanges. Germany has rapidly risen to
a very important place in the financial, industrial, and
mercantile world. Will she keep it? Much will depend on her
power to push herself on the sea."
United States Consular Reports,
September, 1899, page 127.
{248}
GERMANY: A. D. 1899.
Military statistics.
A report presented to the Reichstag showed the total number of
men liable for service in 1899, including the surplus from
previous years, was 1,696,760. Of these 716,998 were 20 years
of age, 486,978 of 21 years, 362,568 of 22 years, and 130,216
of more than 22 years. The whereabouts of 94,224 was unknown,
and 97,800 others failed to appear and sent no excuse; 427,586
had already undertaken military duties, 579,429 cases were
either adjourned or the men rejected (for physical reasons),
1,245 were excluded from the service, 43,196 were exempt,
112,839 were incorporated in the naval reserve, 226,957 were
called upon to join the colors, leaving a surplus of 5,187;
there were 23,266 volunteers for the army and 1,222 for the
navy. Of the 226,957 who joined the colors 216,880 joined the
army as combatants and 4,591 as non-combatants, and 5,486
joined the navy. Of the 5,486 the maritime population
furnished 3,132 and the inland 2,354. There were 21,189 men
who entered the army before attaining the regulation age, and
1,480 under age who entered the navy; 33,652 of the inland
population and only 189 of the maritime were condemned for
emigrating without leave; while 14,150 inland and 150 maritime
cases were still under consideration at the end of the year.
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (February).
Chinese anti-missionary demonstrations in Shantung.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1899.
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (February).
Purchase of Caroline, Pelew and Marianne Islands from Spain.
See (in this volume)
CAROLINE AND MARIANNE ISLANDS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (May-August).
Advice to the South African Republic.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL):
A. D. 1899 (MAY-AUGUST).
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (June).
State of German colonies.
The following report on German colonies for the year ending
June 30, 1899, was made to the British Foreign Office by one
of the secretaries of the Embassy at Berlin:
"The number of Europeans resident in the German African
Protectorates, viz., Togoland, Cameroons, South-West Africa,
and East Africa, at the time of the issue of the latest
colonial reports in the course of 1899 is given as 4,522 men,
women, and children, of whom 3,228 were Germans. The expense
to the home government of the African colonies, together with
Kiao-chao in the Far East, the Caroline and Samoa Islands in
the South Seas, and German New Guinea and its dependencies, is
estimated at close upon £1,500,000 for 1900, the Imperial
Treasury being asked to grant in subsidies a sum nearly double
that required last year. Kiao-chao is included for the first
time in the Colonial Estimates, and Samoa is a new item. The
Imperial subsidy has been increased for each separate
Protectorate, with the single exception of the Caroline
Islands, which are to be granted £5,000 less than last year.
East Africa receives about £33,000 more; the Cameroons,
£10,000; South-West Africa, £14,000; Togoland, £800; New
Guinea, £10,000; and the new items are: £489,000 for Kiao-chao
(formerly included in the Naval Estimates), and £2,500 for
Samoa. A Supplementary Vote of £43,265 for the Protectorate
troops in the Cameroons is also now before the Budget
Committee. …
"Great efforts have been made to encourage German trade with
the African colonies, and it is shown that considerable
success has been attained in South-West Africa, where the
total value of goods imported from Germany amounted to
£244,187, as against £181,961 in the previous year, with an
appreciable falling-off in the value of imports from other
countries. In East Africa the greater part of the import trade
still comes from India and Zanzibar—about £450,000 worth of
goods out of the gross total of £592,630, having been imported
thence. The export trade is also largely carried on through
Zanzibar."
Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: Miscellaneous Series,
Number 528, 1900, pages 3-5).
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (August).
Defeat of the Rhine-Elbe Canal Bill.
Resentment of the Emperor.
An extraordinary edict.
Among several new canal projects in Germany, those of "the
Dortmund-Rhine Canal and the Great Midland Canal (joining from
the east to west the rivers Elbe, Weser, and Rhine) are the
most important. The first involves an expenditure of over
£8,000,000 altogether, and the second is variously estimated
at from £10,000,000 to £20,000,000, according to its eventual
scope. The latter is intended to amalgamate the eastern and
western waterways of the nation and to join the Dortmund-Ems
Canal to the Rhine system, in order to give the latter river
an outlet to the sea via a German port, instead of only
through ports in the Netherlands. It will also place the
Rhine-Main-Danube connection in direct communication with all
the streams of North Germany."
United States Bureau of Statistics,
Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance,
January, 1899.
The Rhine-Elbe canal project is one which the Emperor has
greatly at heart, and when, in August, 1899, a bill to promote
it was defeated in the Prussian Landtag by the Agrarians, who
feared that canal improvements would promote agricultural
competition, his resentment was expressed in an extraordinary
edict, which said: "The royal government, to its keen regret,
has been compelled to notice that a number of officials, whose
duty it is to support the policy of His Majesty the King, and to
execute and advance the measures of His Majesty's government,
are not sufficiently conscious of this obligation. … Such
conduct is opposed to all the traditions of the Prussian
administration, and cannot be tolerated." This was followed by
an extensive dismissal of officials, and excited strong
feeling against the government in a class which is nothing if
not loyal to the monarchy.
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (November).
Railway concession in Asia Minor, to the Persian Gulf.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1899 (NOVEMBER).
GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (November).
Re-arrangement of affairs in the Samoan Islands.
Partition of the islands with the United States.
Withdrawal of England, with compensations in the Tonga
and Solomon Islands and in Africa.
See (in this volume)
SAMOAN ISLANDS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900.
Military and naval expenditure.
See (in this volume)
WAR BUDGETS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900.
Naval strength.
See (in this volume)
NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (January).
Introduction of the Civil Code.
On the first day of the year 1900 a great revolution was
effected in the laws of Germany, by putting into operation the
new German Civil Code. "Since the close of the fifteenth
century Germany has been the land of documentary right. The
Roman judicial code was recognized as common law; while all
legal procedure distinctly native in its origin was confined
to certain districts and municipalities, and was, therefore,
entirely devoid of Imperial signification in the wider sense.
The Civil Code of the land was represented by the Corpus Juris
Civilis, a Latin work entirely incomprehensible to the layman.
{249}
This very remarkable circumstance can be accounted for only by
the weakness of mediæval German Imperialism. In England and
France royalty itself had, since the fourteenth century,
assumed control of the laws in order that a homogeneous
national code might be developed. German Imperialism of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, was incapable of
such a task. …
"An incessant conflict has been waging in Germany between the
Roman Law of the Empire and the native law as perpetuated in
the special enactments of the separate provinces and
municipalities. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
the preponderance of power lay with the Roman system, which
was further supported by the German science of jurisprudence—
a science identified exclusively with the common law of Rome.
Science looked upon the native systems of legal procedure as
irrational and barbarous; and as Roman judicature exercised
complete dominion over all legislation, the consequence was
that it steadily advanced, while native and local law was
gradually destroyed. Only within the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries has the native law of Germany been aroused to the
defence of its interests, … the signal for the attack upon
Roman Law being given by King Frederick William I, of Prussia.
As early as 1713 this monarch decreed that Roman law was to be
abrogated in his dominions, and replaced by the native law of
Prussia. The movement became general; and the era of modern
legal codes was ushered in. The legal code of Bavaria was
established in 1756; Prussia followed in 1794; France, in 1804
(Code Civil); Baden, in 1809; Austria, in 1811 (Das
Oesterreichische Buergerliche Gesetzbuch); and finally Saxony,
in 1863 (the designation here being similar to that adopted by
Austria). Everywhere the motto was the same; viz.,
'Emancipation from the Latin Code of Rome.' The native code
was to supplant the foreign, obscure, and obsolete Corpus
Juris. But the success of these newly established codes was
limited; each being applicable to its own particular province
only. Moreover, many of the German states had retained the
Roman law; confining their reforms to a few modifications. …
"The reestablishment of the German Empire was, therefore,
essential also to the reestablishment of German law. As early
as 1874 the initial steps for the incorporation of a new
German Civil Code had already been taken; and this work has
now at last been completed. On August 18, 1896, the new
system, together with a 'Law of Introduction,' was promulgated
by Emperor William II. It will become effective on January 1,
1900, a day which will ever be memorable as marking the climax
of a development of four centuries. At the close of the
fifteenth century Roman law was accepted in Germany; and now,
at the end of the nineteenth, this entire system is to be
completely abolished throughout the Empire. As a means of
education, and solely for this purpose, the Roman Code will be
retained in the universities. As a work of art it is immortal;
as a system of laws, perishable. The last relic of that grand
fabric of laws, which once dominated the whole world, crumbles
to-day. The national idea is victorious; and German law for
the German Empire is at last secured."
R. Sohm,
The Civil Code of Germany
(Forum, October, 1800).
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (January-March).
The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (February).
Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial
policy in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1890-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (February-June).
Increased naval programme.
With much difficulty, and as the result of strenuous pressure,
the Emperor succeeded in carrying through the Reichstag, in
June, a bill which doubles the programme of naval increase
adopted in 1898.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (April).
"After the way had been prepared by a speech of the Emperor to
the officers of the Berlin garrison on January 7, 1900, and by
a vigorous Press agitation, this project was brought before
the Reichstag on February 8. In form it was an amendment of
the Sexennate, or Navy Law of 1898, which had laid down a six
years' programme of naval construction. By the new measure
this programme was revised and extended over a period of 20
years. Instead of the double squadron of 10 battleships, with
its complement of cruisers and other craft, it was demanded
that the Government should be authorized to build two double
squadrons, or 38 battleships and the corresponding number of
cruisers. The Bill also provided for a large increase in the
number of ships to be employed in the protection of German
interests in foreign waters. The Centre party, both through
its speakers in the Reichstag and through its organs in the
Press, at first took up a very critical attitude towards the
Bill. Its spokesmen dwelt especially upon the breach of faith
involved in the extension of the programme of naval
construction so soon after the compromise of 1898 had been
accepted, and upon the difficulty of finding the money to pay
for a fleet of such magnitude. The Clerical leaders, however,
did not persist in their opposition, and finally agreed to
accept the main provisions of the Bill, with the exception of
the proposed increase in the number of ships employed in
foreign waters. They made it a condition that the Government
should incorporate with the Bill two financial projects
designed to provide the money required without burdening the
working classes. Both the Stamp Duties Bill and the Customs
Bill were adopted by the Government, and the Navy Bill was
carried with the aid of the Centre."
Berlin Correspondent, London Times.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (May).
The Lex Heinze.
The Socialists won a notable triumph in May, when they forced
the Reichstag to adopt their views in the shaping of a measure
known as the Lex Heinze. This Bill, as introduced by the
Government, gave the police increased powers in dealing with
immorality. The Clericals and the Conservatives sought to
extend its scope by amendments which were denounced by the
Radicals and Socialists as placing restrictions upon the
"liberty of art and literature." After a prolonged struggle,
in which the Socialists resorted to the use of obstruction,
the most obnoxious amendments were withdrawn.
{250}
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (May).
Passage of the Meat Inspection Bill.
A much discussed and sharply contested bill, providing for a
stringent inspection of imported meats, and aimed especially
at the obstructing of the American meat trade, was passed by
the Reichstag on the 23d of May. It prohibits the importation
of canned or sausage meat entirely, and imposes conditions on
the introduction of other meats which are thought to be, in
some cases, prohibitory. The measure was originally claimed to
be purely one of sanitary precaution. It "had been introduced
in the Reichstag early in 1899, but the sharp conflict of
interests about it kept it for more than a year in committee,
When the bill finally emerged for discussion in the Reichstag,
it was found that the Agrarian majority had distorted it from
a sanitary to a protective measure. Both in the new form they
gave the bill and in their discussions of it in the Reichstag,
the Agrarians showed that it was chiefly the exclusion of
foreign meats, rather than a system of sanitary inspection,
that they wanted. As finally passed in May the bill had lost
some of the harsh prohibitory features given it by the
Agrarians, the latter contenting themselves with the exclusion
of canned meats and sausages. To the foreign student of German
politics, the Meat Inspection Law is chiefly interesting as
illustrating the tendency of the general government to seize
upon functions which have hitherto been in the hands of the
individual states and municipalities, as well as of bringing
the private affairs of the people under the control of
governmental authority. It is another long step of the German
government away from the principle of 'laissez-faire.' The
task undertaken by the government here is itself a stupendous
one. There is certainly no other great government in the world
that would endeavor to organize the administrative machinery
for inspecting every pound of meat that comes upon the markets
of the country."
W. C. Dreher,
A Letter from Germany
(Atlantic Monthly, March, 1901).
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (June).
Opening of the Elbe and Trave Canal.
"The new Elbe and Trave Canal, which has been building five
years and has been completed at a cost of 24,500,000 marks
($5,831,000)—of which Prussia contributed 7,500,000 marks
($1,785,000) and the old Hansa town of Lübeck, which is now
reviving, 17,000,000 marks ($4,046,000)—was formally opened by
the German Emperor on the 16th [of June]. The length of the
new canal-which is the second to join the North Sea and the
Baltic, following the Kaiser Wilhelm Ship Canal, or Kiel
Canal, which was finished five years ago at a cost of
156,000,000 marks ($37,128,000)-is about 41 miles. The
available breadth of the new canal is 72 feet; breadth of the
lock gates, 46 feet; length of the locks, 87 yards; depth of
the locks, 8 feet 2 inches. The canal is crossed by
twenty-nine bridges, erected at a cost of $1,000,000. The span
of the bridges is in all cases not less than 30 yards and
their height above water level about 15 feet. There are seven
locks, five being between Lübeck and the Möllner See—the
highest point of the canal—and two between Möllner See and
Lauenburg-on-the-Elbe."
United States, Consular Reports,
September, 1900, page 8.
A memorandum by the British Charge d'Affaires in Berlin on the
Elbe-Trave Canal says that the opening of the Kaiser Wilhelm
Canal injuriously affected the trade of Lübeck. This was
foreseen, and in 1894 a plan was sanctioned for the widening
of the existing canal, which only allowed of the passage of
vessels of about thirty tons. The direction of the old canal
was followed only to some extent, as it had immense curves,
while the new bed was fairly straight from Lübeck to
Lauenburg, on the Elbe above Hamburg. The memorandum states
that the undertaking is of great importance to the States
along the Elbe, as well as to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and
Russia. It will to some extent divert traffic from Hamburg,
and possibly reduce somewhat the revenue of the Kaiser Wilhelm
Canal.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (June-December).
Co-operation with the Powers in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (September).
Government loan placed in America.
Great excitement and indignation was caused in September by
the action of the imperial government in placing a loan of
80,000,000 marks (about $20,000,000) in the American money
market. On the meeting of the Reichstag, the finance minister,
Dr. von Miquel, replying to attacks upon this measure,
explained that in September the state of the German market was
such that if they had raised the 80,000,000 marks at home the
bank discount rate would have risen above the present rate of
5 per cent. before the end of the year. In the previous winter
the bank rate had been at 6 per cent, for a period of 90 days,
and during three weeks it had stood at 7 per cent. The
government had been strongly urged to do everything in its
power to prevent the recurrence of such high rates of
discount. The London rate was rapidly approaching the German,
and there was reason to fear that there would be a serious
flow of gold from Germany. It was therefore urgently desirable
to attract gold from abroad, and there was no country where money
was so easy at the time as in the United States. This was due
to the extraordinarily favorable balance of American trade and
the remarkable increase in exports out of all proportion to
the development of imports. Another reason was the American
Currency Law, which enabled the national banks to issue as
much as 100 per cent. of their capital in loans, whereas they
formerly issued only 90 per cent. There was no doubt that the
80,000,000 marks could have been obtained in Germany, but the
public must have been aware that other loans of much greater
extent were impending. There was going to be a loan of about
150,000,000 marks for the expedition to China, and it was
certain that before the end of the year 1901 considerable
demands would be made upon the public.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (September).
Proposal to require leaders of the Chinese attack
on foreigners to be given up.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (October).
Anglo-German agreement concerning policy in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
{251}
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (October 9).
Lèse-majesté in criticism of the Emperor's speech to soldiers
departing for China, enjoining no quarter and commending the
Huns as a military example.
Increasing prosecutions for Lèse-majesté.
On the 9th of October, a newspaper correspondent wrote from
Berlin: "The Berlin newspapers of yesterday and to-day
chronicle no fewer than five trials for 'lèse-majesté.' The
most important case was that of Herr Maximilian Harden, the
editor of the weekly magazine 'Zukunft.' Herr Harden, who
enjoyed the confidence of the late Prince Bismarck, wields a
very satirical pen, and has been designated 'The Junius of
modern Germany.' In 1898 Herr Harden was convicted of
lèse-majesté and was sentenced to six months' incarceration in
a fortress. In the present instance he was accused of having
committed lèse-majesté in an article, 'The Fight with the
Dragon,' published in the 'Zukunft' of August 11. The article
dealt with the speech delivered by the Emperor at Bremerhaven
on July 27, 'the telegraphic transmission of which, as was
asserted at the time, had been forbidden by Count von Bülow.'
The article noted as a fact that the Emperor had commanded the
troops who were leaving for China to give no quarter and to
make no prisoners, but, imitating the example of Attila and
the Huns, to excite a terror in East Asia which would last for
a thousand years. The Emperor had added, 'May the blessing of
God attend your flags and may this war have the blessed
result that Christianity shall make its way into China.' Herr
Harden in his comments on this speech had critically examined
the deeds of the historic Attila and had contrasted him with
the Attila of popular story in order to demonstrate that he
was not a proper model to set up for the imitation of German
soldiers. The article in the 'Zukunft' had also maintained
that it was not the mission of the German Empire to spread
Christianity in China, and, finally, had described a war of
revenge as a mistake." No publicity was allowed to be given to
the proceedings of the trial. "Herr Harden was found guilty
not only of having been wanting in the respect due to the
Emperor but of having actually attacked his Majesty in a way
that constituted lèse-majesté. The Court sentenced him to six
months' incarceration in a fortress and at the same time
directed that the incriminated number of the 'Zukunft' should
be destroyed.
"The 'Vossische Zeitung' remarks:—'We read in the newspapers
to-day that a street porter in Marburg has been sentenced to
six months' imprisonment for insulting the Empress, that in
Hamburg a workman has been sentenced to five months'
imprisonment for lèse-majesté, that in Beuthen a workman has
been sentenced to a year's imprisonment for lèse-majesté, and
that in Dusseldorf a man who is deaf and dumb has been
sentenced to four months' imprisonment for the same offence.
The prosecutions for lèse-majesté are multiplying at an
alarming rate. We must emphatically repeat that such
proceedings appear to us to be in the last degree unsuited to
promote the principles of Monarchy. … The greater the number
of political prosecutions that are instituted the more
accustomed, under force of circumstances, does the Press
become to the practice of writing so that the reader may read
between the lines. And this attitude is to the advantage
neither of public morals nor of the Throne. … We regret in
particular that the case of yesterday (that of Herr Harden)
was tried 'in camera.' … It has justly been said that
publicity is more indispensable in political trials than in
prosecutions against thieves and murderers. … If there is no
prospect of an improvement in this respect the Reichstag will
have to devote its serious attention to the question how the
present administration of justice is to be dealt with, not
only in the interest of freedom of speech and of the Press,
but also for the good of the Crown and the well-being of the
State.'"
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (October 18).
Change in the Imperial Chancellorship.
On the 18th of October it was announced in the "Imperial
Gazette" that" His Majesty the Emperor and King has been
graciously pleased to accede to the request of the Imperial
Chancellor, the President of the Ministry and Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Prince Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Prince of
Ratibor and Corvey, to be relieved of his offices, and has at
the same time conferred upon him the high Order of the Black
Eagle with brilliants. His Majesty has further been graciously
pleased to appoint Count von Bülow, Minister of State and
Secretary of State to the Foreign Office, to be Imperial
Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs." Count von Bülow
is the third of the successors of Prince Bismarck in the high
office of the Imperial Chancellor. The latter was followed by
Count von Caprivi, who gave way to Prince Hohenlohe in 1894.
Prince Hohenlohe had nearly reached the age of 82 when he is
said to have asked leave to retire from public life.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (November).
Withdrawal of legal tender silver coins.
"Germany has lately taken a step to clear off the haze from
her financial horizon by calling in the outstanding thalers
which are full legal tender, and turning them into subsidiary
coins of limited legal tender—a process which will extend
over ten years. At the end of that time, if no misfortune
intervenes, she will be on the gold standard as surely and
safely as England is. Her banks can now tender silver to their
customers when they ask for gold, as the Bank of France can
and does occasionally. When this last measure is carried into
effect the only full legal-tender money in Germany will be
gold, or Government notes redeemable in gold."
New York Nation,
November 29, 1900.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (November-December).
The Reichstag and the Kaiser.
His speeches and his system of personal government.
In the Reichstag, which reassembled on the 14th of November,
"the speeches of the Kaiser were discussed by men of all
parties, with a freedom that was new and refreshing in German
political debates. Apart from the Kaiser's speeches in
connection with the Chinese troubles, the debates brought out
some frank complaints from the more 'loyal' sections of German
politics, that the Kaiser is surrounded by advisers who
systematically misinform him as to the actual state of public
opinion. It has long been felt, and particularly during the
past few years, that the present system of two cabinets—one of
which is nominally responsible to the Reichstag and public
opinion, while the other is merely a personal cabinet,
responsible to neither, and yet exercising an enormous
influence in shaping the monarch's policies—has been growing
more and more intolerable. This system of personal government
is becoming the subject of chronic disquietude in Germany, and
even the more loyal section of the press is growing restive
under it. Bismarck's wise maxim, 'A monarch should appear in
public only when attired in the clothing of a responsible
ministry,' is finding more and more supporters among
intelligent Germans."
W. C. Dreher,
A Letter from Germany
(Atlantic Monthly, March, 1901).
{252}
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (December).
Census of the Empire.
Growth of Berlin and other cities.
Urban population compared with that in the United States.
A despatch from Berlin, February 26, announced the results of
the census of December, 1900, made public that day. The
population of the German Empire is shown to have increased
from 52,279,901 in 1895 to 56,345,014. Of this population
27,731,067 are males and 28,613,947 females. Over 83 per cent.
of the whole population is contained in the four kingdoms; of
these Prussia comes first with (in round figures) 34,500,000
inhabitants, and Bavaria second with 6,200,000. The figures
for Saxony and Würtemberg are 4,200,000 and 2,300,000
respectively. More than 16 per cent. of the population is
resident in the 33 towns of over 100,000 inhabitants. Of these
33 towns the largest is Berlin, while the smallest is Cassel,
of which the inhabitants number 106,001.
The Prussian Statistical Office had already published the
results of the census, so far as they concern Berlin and its
suburbs. It appears that the population of the German capital
now amounts to 1,884,151 souls, as against 1,677,304 in 1895
and 826,3!1 in 1871. The population of the suburbs has
increased from 57,735 in 1871 and 435,236 in 1895, to 639,310
in 1900. The total population of the capital, including the
suburbs, is given as 2,523,461 souls, as against 2,112,540 in
1895, an increase of over 19 per cent. Some figures relating
to other cities had previously appeared, going to show "an
acceleration of the movement of population from the country
toward the great cities. The growth of the urban population in
five years has been astonishing. The population of Berlin, for
example, increased more than twice as much in the last five
years as in the preceding five. The fourteen German cities now
having a population of above 200,000 have increased more than
17 per cent since 1895. … No other European capital is growing
so fast in wealth and numbers as Berlin; and the city is rapidly
assuming a dominant position in all spheres of German life."
W. C. Dreher,
A Letter from Germany
(Atlantic Monthly, March, 1901).
The percentage of growth in Berlin "has been far outstripped
by many other cities, especially by Nuremberg; and so far as
our own census shows, no American city of over 50,000
inhabitants can match its increase. In five years it has grown
from 162,000 to 261,000—60 per cent increase. That would mean
120 per cent in a decade.
"But though Germany has only one city of more than one
million, and one more of more than half a million, and the
United States has three of each class, Germany has, in
proportion to its population rather more cities of from 50,000
to 100,000 inhabitants, and decidedly more of from 100,000 to
500,000, than the United States. In the United States
8,000,000 people live in cities of over 500,000 inhabitants,
against some 3,000,000 in Germany; yet in the United States a
larger percentage of the population lives in places which have
under 50,000 inhabitants."
The World's Work,
March, 1901.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (January).
Celebration of the Prussian Bicentenary.
See (in this volume)
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1901.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (January).
Promised increase of protective duties.
In the Reichstag—the Parliament of the Empire—on the 26th of
January, the Agrarians brought in a resolution demanding that
the Prussian Government should "in the most resolute manner"
use its influence to secure a "considerable increase" in the
protective duties on agricultural produce at the approaching
revision of German commercial policy, and should take steps to
get the new Tariff Bill laid before the Reichstag as promptly
as possible. In response, the Imperial Chancellor, Count von
Bülow, made the following declaration of the policy of the
government, for which all parties had been anxiously waiting:
"Fully recognizing the difficult situation in which
agriculture is placed, and inspired by the desire effectively
to improve that situation, the Prussian Government is resolved
to exert its influence in order to obtain adequate protection
for agricultural produce by means of the Customs duties, which
must be raised to an extent calculated to attain that object."
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (January).
The Prussian Canal scheme enlarged.
The canal scheme which suffered defeat in the Prussian diet in
1899 (see above), and the rejection of which by his dutiful
agrarian subjects roused the wrath of the emperor-king, was
again brought forward, at the opening of the session of the
Diet, or Landtag, in January, 1901, with a great enlargement
of its scope and cost, and with an emphatic expression of the
expectation of his Majesty that the bill providing for it
should be passed. The bill covered no less than seven
different projects, of which the total cost to the State was
estimated at about 389,010,700 marks, or nearly $100,000,000.
These include the Rhine-Elbe Canal, which is calculated to
cost 260,784,700 marks; a ship canal between Berlin and
Stettin, to cost 41,500,000 marks; a waterway connecting the
Oder and the Vistula, of which the cost, together with that of
a channel rendering the Warthe navigable for ships from Posen to
the junction of the Netze, is estimated at 22,631,000 marks,
and a canal connecting the province of Silesia with the canal
joining the Oder to the Spree. The bill further proposed that
the State should participate in the work of improving the flow
of water in the Lower Oder and the Upper Havel to the extent
of 40,989,000 marks and 9,670,000 marks respectively, and
should contribute the sum of 9,336,000 marks towards the
canalization of the Spree.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (February).
Annual meeting of the Husbandists.
The annual meeting of the Husbandists, one of the
organizations of German agrarian interests, held at Berlin on
the 11th of February, is reported to have been attended by
some 8,000 delegates. The official report of the organization
showed a membership of 232,000, or an increase of 26,000 over
that of the previous year. Large gains were made during the
year in the southern section of the Empire. It also appeared
that no fewer than 202,000 members represented small farmers.
A resolution was adopted demanding that the Government grant
such protection to agriculture as would enable it to form
prices independent of the Bourse, fixing the duties high
enough to make it possible for tillers of the soil to reap as
large profits for their products as from 1870 to 1800. "Above
all," said the resolution, "Germany must not grant the same
tariffs to countries discriminating in their tariffs, as in
the case of the United States."
----------GERMANY: End--------
{253}
GERRYMANDERING:
Legislation against by the Congress of the United States.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY).
GLADSTONE, William Ewart:
Retirement from public life.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.
Death and burial.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (MAY).
GOEBEL, Governor William E.:
Assassination.
See (in this volume)
KENTUCKY; A. D. 1895-1900.
GOLD COAST COLONY.
See (in this volume)
ASHANTI; and AFRICA: A. D. 1900.
GOLD DEMOCRATS.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1893 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
GOLD FIELDS, The Witwatersrand.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1885-1890.
GOLD MINING: Cape Nome discovery.
See (in this volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1898-1899
GOLD STANDARD.
See (in this volume)
MONETARY QUESTIONS AND MEASURES.
GOLDEN STOOL, King Prempeh's.
See (in this volume)
ASHANTI.
GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE, at Khartoum.
See (in this volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1898-1899.
GOSCHEN, George J.:
First Lord of the Admiralty in the British Cabinet.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.
GOSPODAR.
See (in this volume)
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES (MONTENEGRO).
GOTHENBURG SYSTEM, The.
Dispensary Laws.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1892-1899;
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1897-1899;
SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1899; and
ALABAMA: A. D. 1899.
GRASPAN, Battle of.
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
GREAT BRITAIN.
See ENGLAND.
GREATER NEW YORK.
See (in this volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1896-1897.
----------GREECE: Start--------
GREECE:
Light on prehistoric times.
Recent explorations in Crete and Egypt.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: CRETE; and same: EGYPT.
GREECE: A. D. 1896 (April).
Revival of Olympic Games.
See (in this volume)
ATHENS: A. D. 1896.
GREECE: A. D. 1897 (February-March).
Interference in Crete.
Expedition of Colonel Vassos.
Appeal for the annexation of the island.
Action of the Great Powers.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
GREECE: A. D. 1897 (March-June).
Disastrous war with Turkey.
Appeal for peace.
Submission to the Powers on the Cretan question.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
GREECE: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
GREECE: A. D. 1899-1900.
Attitude towards impending revolt in Macedonia.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1901; and
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
----------GREECE: End--------
GREENBACKS.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY);
1895-1896 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY); 1896-1898; and
1900 (MARCH-DECEMBER)
GREENLAND, Recent exploration of.
See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1895-1896, 1896, 1897, 1898-1899,
1898-, 1899, 1899-1900.
GREYTOWN:
Possession given to Nicaragua.
See (in this volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA (NICARAGUA-COSTA RICA): A. D. 1897.
GRONDWET (CONSTITUTION), of the South African Republic.
See (in this volume)
CONSTITUTION (GRONDWET) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
GUAM, The island of: A. D. 1898 (June).
Seizure by the U. S. S. Charleston.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (JUNE), THE WAR WITH SPAIN.
GUAM: A. D. 1898 (December).
Cession to the United States.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).
GUAM: A. D. 1900.
Naval station.
Work planned for the creation of an U. S. naval station at
Guam is expected to cost, it is said, about $1,000,000.
GUANTANAMO:
Capture of harbor by American navy.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).
GUATEMALA.
See (in this volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA.
GUAYAMA, Engagement at.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1898 (JULY-AUGUST: PORTO RICO).
GUÉRIN, M.:
The barricade of.
See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1900 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
GUIANA, British: A. D. 1895-1899.
Venezuela boundary question.
See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA.
GUIANA, French:
Boundary dispute with Brazil.
Award of Swiss arbitrators.
See (in this volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1900.
GUINEA, French.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (FRENCH WEST AFRICA).
GUNGUNHANA, Portuguese war with.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895-1896 (PORTUGUESE EAST AFRICA).
{254}
H.
HABANA, or HAVANA.
See (in this volume)
CUBA.
HAFFKINE'S PROPHYLACTIC.
See (in this volume)
PLAGUE.
HAGUE, The, Peace Conference at.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
HALEPA, The Pact of.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1896.
HALL OF FAME, for Great Americans, The.
In the designing of new buildings for the New York University
College of Arts and Science, at University Heights, certain
exigencies of art led to the construction of a stately
colonnade, surrounding a high terrace which overlooks Harlem
River, and the happy idea was conceived by Chancellor
MacCracken of evolving therefrom a "Hall of Fame for Great
Americans." The idea has been carried out, by providing for
the inscription of carefully chosen names on panels of stone,
with a further provision of space for statues, busts,
portraits, tablets, autographs, and other memorials of those
whose names are found worthy of the place. For the selection
of names thus honored, a body of one hundred electors,
representing all parts of the country, was appointed by the
Senate of the University. These electors were apportioned to
four classes of citizens, in as nearly equal numbers as
possible, namely:
(A) University or college presidents and educators.
(B) Professors of history and scientists.
(C) Publicists, editors, and authors.
(D) Judges of the Supreme Court, State or National.
It was required of the electors that they should consider the
claims of eminent citizens in many classes, not less than
fifteen, and that a majority of these classes should be
represented among the first fifty names to be chosen. They
were, furthermore, restricted in their choice to native-born
Americans, a rule which had some reasons in its favor, though
it excluded from the Hall such shining names in American
history as those of John Winthrop, Roger Williams, and
Alexander Hamilton.
As the result of the votes given by 97 electors, in the year
1900, 29 names were found to have received the approval of 51
or more of the electors, and these were ordered to be
inscribed in the Hall of Fame. The 29 names are as follows, in
the order of preference shown them by the 97 electors, as
indicated by the number of votes given to each:
GEORGE WASHINGTON. 97
ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 96
DANIEL WEBSTER. 96
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN. 94
ULYSSES S. GRANT. 92
JOHN MARSHALL. 91
THOMAS JEFFERSON. 90
RALPH WALDO EMERSON. 87
HENRY WADSWORTH LONGFELLOW. 85
ROBERT FULTON. 85
WASHINGTON IRVING. 83
JONATHAN EDWARDS. 81
SAMUEL F. B. MORSE. 80
DAVID GLASGOW FARRAGUT. 79
HENRY CLAY. 74
NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE. 73
GEORGE PEABODY. 72
ROBERT E. LEE. 69
PETER COOPER. 69
ELI WHITNEY. 67
JOHN JAMES AUDUBON. 67
HORACE MANN. 67
HENRY WARD BEECHER 66
JAMES KENT. 65
JOSEPH STORY. 64
JOHN ADAMS. 61
WILLIAM ELLERY CHANNING 58
GILBERT STUART. 52
ASA GRAY. 51
Resolutions by the Senate of the University have determined
the action to be taken for the selection of further names, as
follows: "The Senate will take action in the year 1902, under
the rules of the Hall of Fame, toward filling at that time the
vacant panels belonging to the present year, being 21 in
number." "Each nomination of the present year to the Hall of
Fame that has received the approval of ten or more electors,
yet has failed to receive a majority, will be considered a
nomination for the year 1902. To these shall be added any name
nominated in writing by five of the Board of Electors. Also
other names may be nominated by the New York University Senate
in such way as it may find expedient. Any nomination by any
citizen of the United States that shall be addressed to the
New York University Senate shall be received and considered by
that body." Furthermore: "Every five years throughout the
twentieth century five additional names will be inscribed,
provided the electors under the rules can agree by a majority
upon so many."
The Senate further took note of the many requests that
foreign-born Americans should be considered, by adopting a
memorial to the University Corporation, to the effect that it
will welcome a similar memorial to foreign-born Americans, for
which a new edifice may be joined to the north porch of the
present hall, containing one fifth of the space of the latter,
providing thirty panels for names.
Chancellor H. M. MacCracken,
The Hall of Fame
(American Review of Reviews, November 1900, page 563).
archive.org/details/sim_review-of-reviews-
us_july-december-1900_22_index/mode/
2up?view=theater&q=MacCracken
HANKOW.
See (in this volume)
SHANGHAI.
HART, Sir Robert:
Testimony as to the causes and character of the "Boxer"
movement in China.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
HARVARD UNIVERSITY:
Summer School for Cuban Teachers.
See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1900.
HAVANA.
See (in this volume)
CUBA.

Map of Hawaii and Honolulu.
HAWAII.
Names and areas of the islands.
"For practical purposes, there are eight islands in the
Hawaiian group. The others are mere rocks, of no value at
present. These eight islands, beginning from the northwest,
are named Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe,
Maui, and Hawaii. The areas of the islands [in square miles]
are:
Niihau, 97;
Kauai, 590;
Oahu, 600;
Molokai, 270;
Maui, 760;
Lanai, 150;
Kahoolawe, 63;
Hawaii, 4,210.
Total, 6,740.
{255}
As compared with States of the Union, the total area of the
group approximates most nearly to that of the State of New
Jersey—7,185 square miles. It is more than three times that of
Delaware—2,050 square miles."
Bulletin of the Bureau of American Republics,
August, 1898.
HAWAII:
Annexation to the United States.
On the 16th of June, 1897, the President of the United States
transmitted to Congress a new treaty for the annexation of the
Republic of Hawaii to the United States, signed that day by
representatives of the governments of the two countries,
appointed to draft the same. With the treaty he submitted a
report from his Secretary of State, Mr. Sherman, in which the
latter said: "The negotiation which has culminated in the
treaty now submitted has not been a mere resumption of the
negotiation of 1893 (see HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, in volume 3), but
was initiated and has been conducted upon independent lines.
Then an abrupt revolutionary movement had brought about the
dethronement of the late queen and set up instead of the
theretofore titular monarchy a provisional government for the
control and management of public affairs and the protection of
the public peace, such government to exist only until terms of
union with the United States should have been negotiated and
agreed upon. Thus self-constituted, its promoters claimed for
it only a de facto existence until the purpose of annexation
in which it took rise should be accomplished. As time passed
and the plan of union with the United States became an
uncertain contingency, the organization of the Hawaiian
commonwealth underwent necessary changes, the temporary
character of its first Government gave place to a permanent
scheme under a constitution framed by the representatives of
the electors of the Islands, administration by an executive
council not chosen by suffrage, but self-appointed, was
succeeded by an elective and parliamentary regime, and the
ability of the new Government to hold—as the Republic of
Hawaii—an independent place in the family of sovereign States,
preserving order at home and fulfilling international
obligations abroad, has been put to the proof. Recognized by
the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys,
enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within
its island borders, Hawaii sends to the United States, not a
commission representing a successful revolution, but the
accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly
established sovereign State. However sufficient may have been
the authority of the commissioners with whom the United States
Government treated in 1893, and however satisfied the
President may then have been of their power to offer the
domain of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, the fact
remains that what they then tendered was a territory rather
than an established Government, a country whose administration
had been cast down by a bloodless but complete revolution and
a community in a state of political transition. Now, however,
the Republic of Hawaii approaches the United States as an
equal, and points for its authority to that provision of
article 82 of the constitution, promulgated July 24, 1894,
whereby—'The President, with the approval of the cabinet, is
hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of
political or commercial union between the Republic of Hawaii
and the United States of America, subject to the ratification
of the Senate.'" The essential articles of the treaty thus
submitted were the following:
ARTICLE I.
The Republic of Hawaii hereby cedes absolutely and without
reserve to the United States of America all rights of
sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian
Islands and their dependencies; and it is agreed that all the
territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is
hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name
of the Territory of Hawaii.
ARTICLE II.
The Republic of Hawaii also cedes and hereby transfers to the
United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public,
government or crown lands, public buildings or edifices,
ports, harbors, military equipments and all other public
property of every kind and description belonging to the
Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right
and appurtenance thereunto appertaining. The existing laws of
the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to
such lands in the Hawaiian Islands; but the Congress of the
United States shall enact special laws for their management
and disposition, Provided: that all revenue from or proceeds
of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be
used or occupied for the civil, military or naval purposes of
the United States, or may be assigned for the use of the local
government, shall be used solely for the benefit of the
inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other
public purposes.
ARTICLE III.
Until Congress shall provide for the government of such
Islands all the civil, judicial and military powers exercised
by the officers of the existing government in said Islands,
shall be vested in such person or persons and shall be
exercised in such manner as the President of the United States
shall direct; and the President shall have power to remove
said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned. The
existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations
shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such
treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded
between the United States and such foreign nations. The
municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted for
the fulfilment of the treaties so extinguished, and not
inconsistent with this treaty nor contrary to the Constitution
of the United States, nor to any existing treaty of the United
States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United
States shall otherwise determine. Until legislation shall be
enacted extending the United States customs laws and
regulations to the Hawaiian Islands, the existing customs
relations of the Hawaiian Islands with the United States and
other countries shall remain unchanged.
ARTICLE IV.
The public debt of the Republic of Hawaii, lawfully existing
at the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this
Treaty, including the amounts due to depositors in the
Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank, is hereby assumed by the
Government of the United States; but the liability of the
United States in this regard shall in no case exceed
$4,000,000. So long, however, as the existing Government and
the present commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands are
continued, as hereinbefore provided, said Government shall
continue to pay the interest on said debt.
ARTICLE V.
There shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the
Hawaiian Islands, except upon such conditions as are now or
may hereafter be allowed by the laws of the United States, and
no Chinese by reason of anything herein contained shall be
allowed to enter the United States from the Hawaiian Islands.
{256}
ARTICLE VI.
The President shall appoint five commissioners, at least two
of whom shall be residents of the Hawaiian Islands, who shall
as soon as reasonably practicable, recommend to Congress such
legislation concerning the Territory of Hawaii as they shall
deem necessary or proper."
United States, 55th Congress, 1st Session,
Senate Executive Document E.
A determined opposition to the renewed proposal of Hawaiian
annexation was manifested at once, in Congress and by many
expressions of public opinion at large. It condemned the
measure on grounds of principle and policy alike. It denied
the right of the existing government at Honolulu to represent
the Hawaiian people in such disposal of their country. It
denied the constitutional right of the government of the
United States to annex territory in the circumstances and the
manner proposed. It denied, too, the expected advantages,
whether naval or commercial, that the annexation of the
islands would give to the United States. A protest against the
annexation came also from the deposed Hawaiian queen,
Liliuokalani, and another from a party in the island which
attempted to rally round the presumptive heiress to the
overturned Hawaiian throne, the Princess Kaiulani. The
government of Japan also entered a protest, apprehending some
disturbance of rights which it had acquired for its emigrating
subjects, by treaty with the Republic of Hawaii; but this
protest was ultimately withdrawn. The army of opposition
sufficed, however, to hold the question of annexation in
abeyance for more than a year. No action was taken on the
treaty during the special session of the Senate. When Congress
assembled in December, 1897, President McKinley repeated his
expressions in its favor, and the treaty was reported to the
Senate, from the committee on foreign relations, early in the
following year; but the two-thirds majority needed for its
ratification could not be obtained.
Attempts to accomplish the annexation by that method were
given up in March, 1898, and the advocates of the acquisition
determined to gain their end by the passage of a joint
resolution of Congress, which required no more than a majority
of each House. Over the question in this form the battle was
fiercely fought, until the 15th of June in the House of
Representatives and the 6th of July in the Senate, on which
dates the following "joint resolution to provide for annexing
the Hawaiian Islands to the United States" was passed. It was
signed by the President the following day:
"Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in
due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its
constitution, to cede absolutely and without reserve to the
United States of America all rights of sovereignty of
whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their
dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United
States absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government,
or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors,
military equipment, and all other public property of every
kind and description belonging to the Government of the
Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance
thereunto appertaining: Therefore,
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That said
cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the
said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are
hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United
States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and
that all and singular the property and rights hereinbefore
mentioned are vested in the United States of America. The
existing laws of the United States relative to public lands
shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands; but the
Congress of the United States shall enact special laws for
their management and disposition: Provided, That all revenue
from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part
thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military, or
naval purposes of the United States, or may be assigned for
the use of the local government, shall be used solely for the
benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for
educational and other public purposes.
"Until Congress shall provide for the government of such
islands all the civil, judicial, and military powers exercised
by the officers of the existing government in said islands
shall be vested in such person or persons and shall be
exercised in such manner as the President of the United States
shall direct; and the President shall have power to remove
said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned. The
existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations
shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such
treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded,
between the United States and such foreign nations. The
municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted for
the fulfillment of the treaties so extinguished, and not
inconsistent with this joint resolution nor contrary to the
Constitution of the United States nor to any existing treaty
of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress
of the United States shall otherwise determine. Until
legislation shall be enacted extending the United States
customs laws and regulations to the Hawaiian Islands the
existing customs relations of the Hawaiian Islands with the
United States and other countries shall remain unchanged. The
public debt of the Republic of Hawaii, lawfully existing at
the date of the passage of this joint resolution, including
the amounts due to depositors in the Hawaiian Postal Savings
Bank, is hereby assumed by the Government of the United
States; but the liability of the United States in this regard
shall in no case exceed four million dollars. So long,
however, as the existing Government and the present commercial
relations of the Hawaiian Islands are continued as
hereinbefore provided said Government shall continue to pay
the interest on said debt.
"There shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the
Hawaiian Islands, except upon such conditions as are now or
may hereafter be allowed by the laws of the United States; and
no Chinese, by reason of anything herein contained, shall be
allowed to enter the United States from the Hawaiian Islands.
"The President shall appoint five commissioners, at least two
of whom shall be residents of the Hawaiian Islands, who shall,
as soon as reasonably practicable, recommend to Congress such
legislation concerning the Hawaiian Islands as they shall deem
necessary or proper.
{257}
"SECTION 2.
That the commissioners hereinbefore provided for shall be
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate.
"SECTION 3.
That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, or so much
thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to
be immediately available, to be expended at the discretion of
the President of the United States of America, for the purpose
of carrying this joint resolution into effect."
There was no strict division of parties on the passage of the
resolution; but only three Republicans in the House voted
against it. Speaker Reed, who had strenuously opposed the
measure, was absent. Two Republican senators voted against the
resolution and three who opposed it were paired. A large
majority of the Democrats in both Houses were in opposition.
The policy advocated by the opponents of annexation was set
forth in the following resolution, which they brought to a
vote in the House, and which was defeated by 205 to 94:
"1. That the United States will view as an act of hostility
any attempt upon the part of any government of Europe or Asia
to take or hold possession of the Hawaiian islands or to
account upon any pretext or under any conditions sovereign
authority therein.
2. That the United States hereby announces to the people of
those islands and to the world the guarantee of the
independence of the people of the Hawaiian islands and their
firm determination to maintain the same."
Immediately upon the passage of the resolution of annexation,
preparations were begun at Honolulu for the transfer of
sovereignty to the United States, which was performed
ceremoniously August 12. Meantime, the President had
appointed, as commissioners to recommend legislation for the
government of the Islands, Messrs. Shelby M. Cullom, John T.
Morgan, Robert R. Hitt, Sanford B. Dole, and Walter F. Frear.
In the following November the Commission presented its report,
with a draft of several bills embodying the recommended
legislation. When the subject came into Congress, wide
differences of opinion appeared on questions concerning the
relations of the new possession to the United States and the
form of government to be provided for it. As the consequence,
more than a year passed before Congress reached action on the
subject, and Hawaii was kept in suspense for that period,
provisionally governed under the terms of the resolution of
annexation. The Act which, at last, determined the status and
the government of Hawaii, under the flag of the United States,
became law by the President's signature on the 30th of April,
1900, and Sanford B. Dole, formerly President of the Republic
of Hawaii, was appointed its governor.
The fundamental provisions of the "Act to provide a government
for the Territory of Hawaii" are the following:
SECTION 2.
That the islands acquired by the United States of America
under an Act of Congress entitled "Joint resolution to provide
for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,"
approved July seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight,
shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii.
SECTION 3.
That a Territorial government is hereby established over the
said Territory, with its capital at Honolulu, on the island of
Oahu.
SECTION 4.
That all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii
on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are
hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and
citizens of the Territory of Hawaii. And all citizens of the
United States resident in the Hawaiian Islands who were
resident there on or since August twelfth, eighteen hundred
and ninety-eight, and all the citizens of the United States
who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one
year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.
SECTION 5.
That the Constitution, and, except as herein otherwise
provided, all the laws of the United States which are not
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect
within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States:
Provided, that sections eighteen hundred and fifty and
eighteen hundred and ninety of the Revised Statutes of the
United States shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii.
SECTION 6.
That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution
or laws of the United States or the provisions of this Act
shall continue in force, subject to repeal or amendment by the
legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of the United States. …
SECTION 12.
That the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii shall consist
of two houses, styled, respectively, the senate and house of
representatives, which shall organize and sit separately,
except as otherwise herein provided. The two houses shall be
styled "The legislature of the Territory of Hawaii." …
SECTION 17.
That no person holding office in or under or by authority of
the Government of the United States or of the Territory of
Hawaii shall be eligible to election to the legislature, or to
hold the position of a member of the same while holding said
office. …
SECTION 55.
That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to
all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States locally applicable.
…
SECTION 66.
That the executive power of the government of the Territory of
Hawaii shall be vested in a governor, who shall be appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate of the United States, and shall hold office for four
years and until his successor shall be appointed and
qualified, unless sooner removed by the President. He shall be
not less than thirty-five years of age; shall be a citizen of
the Territory of Hawaii; shall be commander in chief of the
militia thereof; may grant pardons or reprieves for offences
against the laws of the said Territory and reprieves for
offences against the laws of the United States until the
decision of the President is made known thereon. …
SECTION 68.
That all the powers and duties which, by the laws of Hawaii,
are conferred upon or required of the President or any
minister of the Republic of Hawaii (acting alone or in
connection with any other officer or person or body) or the
cabinet or executive council, and not inconsistent with the
Constitution or laws of the United States, are conferred upon
and required of the governor of the Territory of Hawaii,
unless otherwise provided. …
{258}
SECTION 80.
That the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, appoint the chief justice and
justices of the supreme court, the judges of the circuit
courts, who shall hold their respective offices for the term
of four years, unless sooner removed by the President. …
SECTION 81.
That the judicial power of the Territory shall be vested in
one supreme court, circuit courts, and in such inferior courts
as the legislature may from time to time establish. …
SECTION 85.
That a Delegate to the House of Representatives of the United
States, to serve during each Congress, shall be elected by the
voters qualified to vote for members of the house of
representatives of the legislature; such Delegate shall
possess the qualifications necessary for membership of the
senate of the legislature of Hawaii. … Every such Delegate
shall have a seat in the House of Representatives, with the
right of debate, but not of voting.
SECTION 86.
That there shall be established in said Territory a district
court to consist of one judge, who shall reside therein and be
called the district judge. The President of the United States,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United
States, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney,
and a marshal of the United States for the said district, and
said judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for six
years unless sooner removed by the President. Said court shall
have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district
courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases
cognizable in a circuit court of the United States, and shall
proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court. …
SECTION 88.
That the Territory of Hawaii shall comprise a customs district
of the United States, with ports of entry and delivery at
Honolulu, Hilo, Mahukona, and Kahului.
HAWAII: A. D. 1900.
Census of the Islands.
Progress of educational work.
"The last Hawaiian census, taken in the year 1896, gives a
total population of 109,020, of which 31,019 were native
Hawaiians. The number of Americans reported was 8,485. The
results of the Federal census taken this year [1900] show the
islands to have a total population of 154,001, an increase
over that reported in 1896 of 44,981, or 41.2 per cent. The
total land surface of the Hawaiian Islands is approximately
6,449 square miles: the average number of persons to the
square mile at the last three censuses being as follows: For
1890, 13.9; 1896, 16.9; 1900,23.8.
"Education in Hawaii is making favorable progress. In Honolulu
two large schoolhouses have recently been erected at a cost of
$24,778 and $20,349, respectively. The department of education
is under the management of a superintendent of public
instruction, assisted by six commissioners of public
instruction, two of whom are ladies. The tenure of office of
the commissioners is six years, the term of two of them
expiring each year. They serve without pay. The system is the
same as that existing under the Republic of Hawaii. In the
biennial period ending December 31 there were 141 public and
48 private schools in the Hawaiian Islands; 344 teachers in
the public schools, of whom 113 were men and 231 were women,
and 200 teachers in the private schools, of whom 79 were men
and 121 were women. In the same period there were 11,436
pupils in the public schools, of whom 6,395 were boys and
5,041 were girls, and 4,054 pupils in the private schools, of
whom 2,256 were boys and 1,798 were girls. This gives a total
of 15,490 pupils, of whom 8,651 were boys and 6,839 were
girls. … Of the 15,490 pupils, 5,045 were Hawaiian, 2,721 part
Hawaiian, 601 American, 213 British, 337 German, 3,882
Portuguese, 84 Scandinavian, 1,141 Japanese, 1,314 Chinese, 30
South Sea Islanders, and 124 other foreigners. Each
nationality had its own teacher. The expenditures for the two
years ending December 31, 1899, were $575,353. Since the year
1888 nearly all the common schools, in which the Hawaiian
language was the medium of instruction, have been converted
into schools in which English alone is so employed, 98 per
cent. of the children being at present instructed by teachers
who use English."
United States, Secretary of the Interior,
Annual Report, November 30, 1900.
----------HAWAII: End--------
HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY, The.
See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC:
A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER); and 1901 (MARCH).
HAYTI: A. D. 1896.
Election of President Sam.
Hayti elected a new President, General Theresias Simon Sam, to
succeed General Hippolyte, who died suddenly on the 24th of
March.
HAYTI: A. D. 1897.
Quarrel with Germany.
The government of Hayti came into conflict with that of
Germany, in September, 1897, over what was claimed to be the
illegal arrest of a Haytien-born German, named Lueders, who
had secured German citizenship. Germany demanded his release,
with an indemnity at the rate of $1,000 per day for his
imprisonment. The demand not being acceded to promptly, the
German consul at Port-au-Prince hauled down his flag. Then the
United States Minister persuaded the Haytien President,
General Simon Sam, to set Lueders free. But the demand for
indemnity, still pending, brought two German war-ships to
Port-au-Prince on the 6th of December, with their guns ready
to open fire on the town if payment were not made within eight
hours. For Hayti there was nothing possible but submission,
and $30,000 was paid, with apologies and expressions of
regret.
HEBREWS, The ancient:
Their position in history as affected by recent archæological
research.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH; IN BIBLE LANDS.
HECKER, Father Isaac Thomas,
and the opinions called "Americanism."
See (in this volume)
PAPACY: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY).
HELIUM, The discovery of.
See (in this volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT; CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.
HENRY, General Guy V.: Military Governor of Porto Rico.
See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898-1899 (OCTOBER-OCTOBER).
HERVEY, or COOK, ISLANDS:
Annexation to New Zealand.
See (in this volume)
NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).
HEUREAUX, President: Assassination.
See (in this volume)
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: A. D. 1899.
{259}
HICKS-BEACH, Sir Michael,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the British Cabinet.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.
HILPRECHT, Professor H. V.:
Researches on the site of ancient Nippur.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN EXPLORATION.
HINTCHAK, The.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1895.
HINTERLAND.
A German word which has come into general use to describe
unnamed and poorly defined regions lying behind, or on the
inland side, of coast districts, in Africa more especially,
which have been occupied or claimed by European powers.
HISTORICAL DISCOVERIES, Recent.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
HOAR, Senator George F.:
Action to recover the manuscript of Bradford's History.
See (in this volume)
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1897.
HOAR, Senator George F.:
Speech in opposition to the retention of the
Philippine Islands as a subject State.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (APRIL).
HOBART, Garret A.: Vice President of the United States.
Death.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (November).
HOBOKEN, Great fire at.
On the 30th of June, 1900, between 200 and 300 people lost
their lives in a fire which destroyed the pier system of the
North German Lloyd steamship line, at Hoboken, N. J. The fire
wrecked three of the large ships of the company, and is said
to have been the most destructive blaze that ever visited the
piers and shipping of the port of New York. An estimate placed
the loss of life at nearly 300, and the damage to property at
about $10,000,000, but the company's estimate of the loss of
life and the value of the property wiped out was considerably
less. The fire started in some cotton on one of the four large
piers at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. In a few minutes the pier
on which it broke out was enveloped in flames, and in six
minutes the whole pier system was burning. The flames spread
so quickly that many men on the piers and on the vessels,
lighters and barges were hemmed in before they realized that
their lives were in danger.
HOBSON, Lieutenant Richmond Pearson:
The sinking of the collier Merrimac at Santiago.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-JUNE).
HOLLAND.
See (in this volume)
NETHERLANDS, THE KINGDOM OF THE.
HOLLS, Frederick W.:
American Commissioner to the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
HOLY YEAR 1900, Proclamation of the Universal Jubilee of the,
Its extension.
See (in this volume)
PAPACY: A. D. 1900-1901.
HONDURAS.
See (in this volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA.
HONG KONG: A. D. 1894.
The Bubonic Plague.
See (in this volume)
PLAGUE.
HONG KONG: A. D. 1898.
British lease of territory on the mainland.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).
HORMIGUEROS, Engagement at.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (JULY-AUGUST: PORTO RICO).
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The United States:
The "Spoils System" in its service.
See (in this volume)
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1901.
HOVA, The.
See (in this volume)
MADAGASCAR.
HUA SANG, Massacre of missionaries at.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).
HUDSON BAY, Investigation of.
See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1897.
HUMBERT I., King of Italy: Assassination.
See (in this volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1899-1900; and 1900 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
HUNGARY.
See ((in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
HUSBANDISTS, The.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).
I.
ICELAND, Recent exploration of.
See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1898-1899.
IDAHO: A. D. 1896.
Adoption of Woman Suffrage.
On the 11th of December, 1896, an amendment of the
constitution of Idaho, extending the suffrage to women, was
submitted to the then voters of the State, and carried by
12,126, against 6,282. Though carried by a large majority of
the votes given on the suffrage issue, it did not receive a
majority of the whole vote cast on other questions at the same
election; but the supreme court of the State decided that the
amendment had been adopted.
I-HO-CH'UAN, The.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1898.
Strike of coal miners.
Bloody conflict at Virden.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1898.
ILOCANOS, The.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: THE NATIVE INHABITANTS.
ILOILO: The American occupation of the city.
See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).
ILORIN, British subjugation of.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1897 (NIGERIA).
IMPERIAL BRITISH EAST AFRICA COMPANY:
Transfer of territory to the British Government.
See (in this volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (BRITISH EAST AFRICA).
IMPERIAL CONFERENCE:
Meeting of British Colonial Prime Ministers at the Colonial
Office, London.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE-JULY).
IMPERIALISM:
The question in American politics.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1900 (APRIL); and (MAY-NOVEMBER).
{260}
INCOME TAX: Decision against by United States Supreme Court.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (APRIL-MAY).
INDIA: A. D. 1894.
The Waziri War.
A fierce attempt to interrupt the demarcation of the Afghan
boundary was made by the Waziris. The escort of 5,000 troops,
consisting mainly of Sikhs and Goorkhas, was desperately
attacked in camp at Wano, November 3. The attack was repulsed,
but with heavy loss on the British side. It became afterwards
necessary to send three strong columns into the country, under
Sir William Lockhart, in order to carry out the work.
INDIA: A. D. 1895 (March-September).
The defense and relief of Chitral.
The British frontier advanced.
At the extreme northwestern limit of British-Indian dominion
and semi-dominion, under the shadow of the lofty Hindu-Kush
mountains, lie a group of quasi-independent tribal states over
which the Amir of Afghanistan claimed at least a "sphere of
influence" until 1893. In that year the Amir and the
Government of India agreed upon a line which defined the
eastern and southern frontier of Afghanistan, "from Wakhan to
the Persian border," and agreed further as follows: "The
Government of India will at no time exercise interference in
the territories lying beyond this line on the side of
Afghanistan, and his Highness the Amir will at no time
exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this
line on the side of India. The British Government thus agrees
to his Highness the Amir retaining Asmar and the valley above
it, as far as Chanak. His Highness agrees, on the other hand,
that he will at no time exercise interference in Swat, Bajaur,
or Chitral, including Arnawai or Bashgal valley." Under this
agreement, the Indian Government prepared itself to be
watchful of Chitral affairs. The little state was notoriously
a nest of turbulence and intrigue. Its rulers, who bore the
Persian title of Mehtar, signifying "Greater," can never have
expected to live out their days. Changes of government were
brought about commonly by assassination. The reigning prince,
Nizam-ul-Mulk, owed his seat to the murder of his father,
Aman-ul-Mulk, though not by himself. In turn, he fell, on New
Year's day, 1895, slain at the instigation of his
half-brother, Amir-ul-Mulk, who mounted the vacant chair of
state. The usurper was then promptly assailed by two rivals,
one of them his brother-in-law, Umra Khan, a mountain
chieftain of Bajaur, the other an uncle, Sher Afzul, who had
been a refugee at Kabul. On the news of these occurrences at
Chitral, the Government of India sent thither, from Gilgit,
its political agent, Surgeon-Major Robertson, with a small
escort, to learn the state of affairs.
The result of Dr. Robertson's attempt to settle matters was an
alliance of Umra Khan and Sher Afzul in a desperate attempt to
destroy him and his small force of native troops, which had
five English officers at its head. The latter took possession
(March 1) of the fort at Chitral, a structure about 80 yards
square, walled partly with wood, and so placed in a valley
that it was commanded from neighboring hills. In this weak
fortification the little garrison held off a savage swarm of
the surrounding tribes during 46 days of a siege that is as
thrilling in the story of it as any found in recent history.
The first reinforcements sent to Dr. Robertson, from near
Gilgit, were disastrously beaten back, with the loss of the
captain in command and 50 of his men. As speedily as possible,
when the situation was known in India, an army of about 14,000
men was made ready at Peshawur, under the command of
Major-General Sir Robert Low, and relieving columns were
pushed with great difficulty through the Malakand Pass, then
filled deep with snow. A smaller force, of 600 men, under
Colonel Kelly, fought its way from Gilgit, struggling through
the snows of a pass 12,000 feet above the level of the sea.
Colonel Kelly was the first to reach Chitral, which he did on
the 20th of April. The besiegers had fled at his approach. The
beleaguered garrison was found to have lost 40 killed and 70
wounded, out of its fighting force of about 370 men. Sher
Afzul was caught by the Khan of Dir, who led 2,000 of his
followers to the help of the British. Umra Khan escaped to
Kabul, where he was imprisoned by the Amir. Shuja-ul-Mulk, a
younger brother of Amir-ul-Mulk was declared Mehtar. The
question whether British authority should be maintained in
Chitral or withdrawn was now sharply debated in England; but
Lord Salisbury and his party, coming into power at that
moment, decided that the advanced frontier of Indian Empire
must be held. The young Mehtar was installed in the name of
the Maharaja of Kashmir as his suzerain, and the terms under
which his government should be carried on were announced at
his installation (September 2, 1895) by the British Agent, as
follows:
"The general internal administration of the country will be
left in the hands of the Mehtar and of his advisers. The
Government of India do not intend to undertake themselves the
management of the internal affairs of Chitral, their concern
being with the foreign relations of the State, and with its
general welfare. It, however, has to be remembered that
Shuja-ul-Mulk is only a boy, and that, at an age when other
boys are engaged in education and amusement, he has been
called upon to hold the reins of State. Bearing this fact in
mind, the Government of India recognise the necessity of his
receiving some help during the time of his minority, and it
has consequently been decided to leave at Chitral an
experienced Political Officer upon whom the Mehtar may always
call for advice and assistance, while it is proposed to
appoint three persons, Raja Bahadur Khan, the Governor of
Mastuj, Wazir Inayat Khan and Aksakal Fateh Ali Shah, to give
him help, instruction and advice in the management of his
State and in the laws and customs of the people. Ordinarily
the entire country will be governed in accordance with their
experience and judgment; but nevertheless the Assistant
British Agent, if he thinks it necessary to do so, may, at any
time, ask the Mehtar to delay action recommended by his three
advisers, until the opinion of the British Agent at Gilgit has
been obtained, whose decision shall be final and
authoritative.
{261}
"The desirability of abolishing traffic in slaves is a matter
to which the Government of India attach much importance, and
that they have lately interested themselves with some success
in procuring the release of Natives of Kashmir and her
dependencies, including Chitralis, who are held in bondage in
Chinese Turkistan. It is in accordance therefore with the
general policy of the Government of India that in Chitral also
all buying and selling of slaves, whether for disposal in the
country or with the intention of sending them abroad, should
be altogether prohibited. Any such selling of slaves is
therefore from this time forward absolutely illegal."
Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications:
Papers by Command, 1896 (C.-8037).
Also in:
C. Lowe,
The Story of Chitral
(Century magazine, volume 55, page 89).
INDIA: A. D. 1895 (April).
Report of the Opium Commission.
"The long-deferred publication of the report of this
commission was made in April, and the report was signed by
eight out of nine members of the commission. The commissioners
declared that it had not been shown to be necessary, or to be
demanded by the people, that the growth of the poppy and the
manufacture of opium in British India should be prohibited.
Such a prohibition, if extended to the protected States, would
be an unprecedented act of interference on the part of the
paramount Power, and would be sure to be resisted by the
chiefs and their people. The existing treaties with China in
regard to the importation of Indian opium into that country
had been admitted by the Chinese Government to contain all
they desired. The evidence led the commissioners to the
conclusion that the common use of opium in India is moderate,
and its prohibition is strongly opposed by the great mass of
native opinion."
Annual Register, 1895,
pages 337-338.
INDIA: A. D. 1896-1897.
Famine in northwestern and central provinces.
A failure of rains, especially in northwestern and central
India, produced the inevitable consequence of famine, lasting
with awful severity from the spring of 1896 until the autumn
of 1897. In December of the former year there were 561,800
persons employed on relief works which the Indian government
organized. In the following March the number had risen to more
than three millions, and in June it exceeded four millions.
Rain fell in July, and August, and the distress began soon
afterwards to grow less. In addition to the heavy expenditures
of the government, the charitable contributions for the relief
of sufferers from this famine were officially reported to have
amounted to 1,750,000 pounds sterling ($8,750,000).
INDIA: A. D. 1896-1900.
The Bubonic Plague.
See (in this volume)
PLAGUE.
INDIA: A. D. 1897.
Change in the government of Burmah.
See (in this volume)
BURMAH: A. D. 1897.
INDIA: A. D. 1897.
Rejection of American proposals for a
reopening of mints to silver.
See (in this volume)
MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
INDIA: A. D. 1897-1898.
Frontier wars.
From the early summer of 1897 until beyond the close of the
year, the British were once more seriously in conflict with
the warlike tribes of the Afghan frontier. The risings of the
latter were begun in the Tochi Valley, on the 10th of June,
when a sudden, treacherous attack was made by Waziri tribesmen
on the escort of Mr. Gee, the political agent, at the village
of Maizar. A number of officers and men were killed and
wounded, and the whole party would have been destroyed if
timely reinforcements had not reached them. Over 7,000 troops
were subsequently employed in the suppression and punishment
of this revolt. The next outbreak, in the Swat Valley, was
more extensive. It was ascribed to the preaching of a
fanatical Mohammedan priest, known as "the mud mullah," who
labored to excite a religious war, and was opened, July 26, by
a night attack on the British positions at Malakand and
Chakdarra. The latter outpost, guarding the bridge over the
Swat river, on the road to Chitral, was held by a small
garrison of less than 300 men, who were beleaguered for a
considerable time before relief came. According to an official
return of "wars and military operations on or beyond the
borders of British India in which the Government of India has
been engaged," made to Parliament on the 30th of January,
1900, there were 11,826 troops employed in the operations
immediately consequent on this rising, with the result that
"the insurgents were defeated and the fanatical gatherings
were dispersed; large fines were taken in money and arms." But
other neighboring tribes either gave help to the Swats or were
moved to follow their example, and required to be subdued,
their countries traversed by punitive expeditions and "fines
of money and arms" collected. Before the year closed, these
tasks employed 6,800 men in the Mohmand country, 3,200 in the
Utman Khel country, 7,300 in the Buner country, 14,231 in the
Kurram Valley; and then came the most serious business of all.
The Afridis, who had been subsidized by the government of
India for some years, as guardians of the important Khyber
Pass, were suddenly in arms against their paymasters, in
August, destroying the Khyber posts. This serious hostility
called nearly 44,000 British-Indian troops into the field,
under General Sir William Lockhart, whose successful campaign
was not finished until the following spring. The most serious
engagement of the war with the Afridis was fought at the
village of Dargai, October 18. The final results of the
campaign are thus summarized in the return mentioned above:
"British troops traversed the country of the tribes,
inflicting severe loss on the tribesmen, who were ultimately
reduced to submission: they paid large fines in money and
arms, and friendly relations have since been restored."
Great Britain,
House of Commons Reports and Papers, 1900, 13.
INDIA: A. D. 1898.
Discovery of the birthplace and the tomb of Gautama Buddha.
See (in this volume)
BUDDHA.
INDIA: A. D. 1898 (September).
Appointment of Lord Curzon to the Viceroyalty.
In September, 1898, the Right Hon. George N. Curzon, lately
Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was appointed
Viceroy and Governor-General of India, to succeed the Earl of
Elgin. In the following month, Mr. Curzon was raised to the
peerage, as Baron Curzon of Kedleston.
INDIA: A. D. 1899-1900.
Famine again.
There was a recurrence of drought and famine in 1899, far more
extensive than that of 1896-1897; producing more death and
suffering, and calling out more strenuous exertions for its
relief. The regions afflicted were largely the same as two
years before, embracing much of northwestern and central
India. The relief measures which it demanded were carried far
into the summer of 1900. In October of the latter year Lord
Curzon, the Viceroy, addressing the Legislative Council at
Simla, and reviewing the experience through which the
government and the country had passed, made some important
statements of fact:
{262}
"In a greater or less degree," he said, "nearly one-fourth of
the entire population of the Indian continent came within the
range of the relief operations. The loss occasioned may be
roughly put in this way. The annual agricultural production of
India and Burma averages in value between 300 and 400 crores
of rupees [the crore being ten millions, and the rupee
equivalent to about one-third of a dollar]. On a very cautious
estimate the production of 1899-1900 must have been at least
one-quarter, if not one-third, below the average, or at normal
prices 75 crores, or £50,000,000 sterling. If to this be added
the value of some millions of cattle, some conception may be
formed of the destruction of property which great drought
occasions. There have been many great droughts in India, but
no other of which such figures could be predicated as these. …
"If a special characteristic can be attributed to our campaign
of famine relief in the past year, it has been its
unprecedented liberality. There is no parallel in the history
of India or any country of the world to the total of over
6,000,000 persons who, in British India and the native States
for weeks on end, have been dependent upon the charity of the
Government. The famine cost ten crores in direct expenditure,
while 238 lakhs were given to landholders and cultivators on
loans and advances, besides loans to native States. … There
has never been a famine when the general mortality has been
less, when the distress has been more amply or swiftly
relieved, or when the Government and its officers have given
themselves with more whole-hearted devotion to the saving of
life and the service of the people. It is impossible to tell
the actual mortality, but there has apparently been an excess
of mortality over the normal of 750,000. Cholera and smallpox
have accounted for 230,000, which is probably below the mark,
so that the excess in British India has equalled 500,000
during the year. To say that the greater part of these died of
starvation or even of destitution would be an unjustifiable
exaggeration, since many other contributory causes have been
at work."
Referring to the charitable help received from various parts
of the world, Lord Curzon said: "In 1896-1897 the total
collections amounted to 170 lakhs [the lakh being 100,000
rupees] of which 10 lakhs remained over at the beginning of
the recent famine. In the present year the Central Relief
Committee has received a sum of close upon 140 lakhs, not far
short of £1,000,000 sterling. To analyze the subscriptions:
India has contributed about the same amount to the fund as in
1896-1897—namely, 32 lakhs. If the contributions from the
European community are deducted, India may be considered to
have contributed less than one-fifth of the total collections
of 140 lakhs. More might have been expected from the native
community as a whole, notwithstanding individual examples of
remarkable generosity. The little colony of the Straits
Settlements, which has no connexion with India beyond that of
sentiment, has given more than the whole Punjab. A careful
observation of the figures and proceedings in each province
compels me to say that native India has not yet reached as
high a standard of practical philanthropy and charity as might
reasonably be expected. … The collections from abroad amounted
to 108 lakhs, as against 137 in 1896-1897. The United
Kingdom's contribution of 88½ lakhs compared indifferently
with its contribution of 123 lakhs in 1896-1897, but in the
circumstances of the year it is a noble gift. Glasgow has been
especially generous with a donation of 8¼ lakhs and Liverpool
with 4½, in addition to nearly 16 lakhs from the rest of
Lancashire. Australasia has given nearly 8 lakhs in place of 2
lakhs. The Straits Settlements, Ceylon, and Hong-Kong have
also been extremely generous. Even the Chinese native