History for ready reference, Volume 7

by J. N. Larned

offering to adopt. Canada had given Great Britain a preference
in her tariff, first of 25 per cent., afterwards increased to
33 1/3 per cent., and was ready to go farther if the British
Government would reciprocate, in allowing a drawback on the
shilling corn duty (a duty which had been levied for a year
past, and was about to be removed). At the Colonial Conference
of the previous year the representatives of Australia and New
Zealand had expressed readiness to act on the same line. A
recent conference of the British colonies in South Africa had
recommended the Legislatures of those colonies to give the
Mother Country a similar preference on all dutiable goods of
25 per cent. Whether this policy of the colonies should be
developed in the future or withdrawn depended now on the
treatment given to it by the people of Great Britain.
"The people of the Empire," continued Mr. Chamberlain, "have
two alternatives before them. They may maintain if they like
in all its severity the interpretation—in my mind an entirely
artificial and wrong interpretation—which has been placed on
the doctrines of Free Trade by a small remnant of the Little
Englanders, of the Manchester school, who now profess to be
the sole repositories of the doctrines of Mr. Cobden and Mr.
Bright. They may maintain that policy in all its severity,
though it is repudiated by every other nation and by all your
own Colonies. In that case they will be absolutely precluded
either from giving any kind of preference or favour to any of
their Colonies abroad, or even protecting their Colonies
abroad when they offer to favour us. That is the first
alternative. The second alternative is that we should insist
that we will not be bound by any purely technical definition
of Free Trade, that, while we seek as one chief object free
interchange of trade and commerce between ourselves and all
the nations of the world, we will, nevertheless, recover our
freedom, resume that power of negotiation and, if necessary,
retaliation whenever our own interests or our relation between
our Colonies and ourselves are threatened by other people.
"I leave the matter," said Mr. Chamberlain, "in your hands. I
desire that a discussion on this subject should be opened. The
time has not yet come to settle it, but it seems to me that
for good or for evil this is an issue much greater in its
consequences than any of our local disputes. Make a mistake in
legislation. Yet it can be corrected. Make a mistake in your
Imperial policy. It is irretrievable. You have an opportunity;
you will never have it again."
Naturally this speech, from a Minister of the Crown, as
important and influential in the Government and in his party
as Mr. Chamberlain, caused an immense political commotion. It
had suddenly injected a new issue into the politics of the
United Kingdom, involving some reconstruction of the party in
possession of power, and a fundamental readjustment of
principles in some part of it, more or less, according to the
following that Mr. Chamberlain secured. Would he leave the
Ministry or the Ministry leave him?—was the question of the
hour. It remained unanswered for three months or more, while
controversy over the propositions of Mr. Chamberlain raged and
the situation became more puzzling every day. Meantime the
head of the Government, Mr. Balfour, was acting like a
faithful adherent to the English principle of freedom in
trade, by advocating a repeal of the incongruous corn duty
levied the year before, but speaking, at the same time, like a
man of open mind on the question of preferential trade,
treating it as one that demanded careful thought. "If foreign
countries," he said, "should take the view that our
self-governing colonies could be treated as separate nations
we must resist their policy by fiscal retaliation. There must
be a weapon to our hands with which to meet those who might
attempt to disintegrate the Empire by fiscal means. The
question whether we should be justified in raising revenue
with the object of drawing the different portions of the
Empire more closely together was certainly well worth
consideration."
All that he said in these months conveyed the impression that
he was in an undetermined, waiting state of mind on the
question raised by Mr. Chamberlain, not yet convinced that his
colleague should be supported in the new policy proposed, but
quite likely to be. That, however, was not the attitude in
which he could hold the two coalesced parties, Conservative
and Liberal Union, that were behind him in the Government. The
issue had instant activity there, dividing both. The Premier
could suppress debate on it in Parliament, as he did, but
everywhere else in the kingdom the rage of controversy
gathered heat, and party lines on the side of the Government
were rapidly confused. Two members of the Cabinet resigned,
while Mr. Chamberlain kept his place in it until the 9th of
September, when he addressed to Mr. Balfour a letter which
offered his resignation, for reasons stated as follows:
{232}
"Owing to admitted differences of opinion in the Unionist
party the political organisations of the party were paralysed
and our opponents have had full possession of the field. … I
recognise that serious prejudice has been created, and that,
while the people generally are alive to the danger of
unrestricted competition on the part of those foreign
countries that close their markets to us while finding in our
market an outlet for their surplus production, they have not
yet appreciated the importance to our trade of Colonial
markets, nor the danger of losing them if we do not meet in
some way their natural and patriotic desire for preferential
trade.
"The result is that, for the present at any rate, a
preferential agreement with our Colonies involving any new
duty, however small, on articles of food hitherto untaxed is,
even if accompanied by a reduction of taxation on other
articles of food of equally universal consumption,
unacceptable to the majority in the constituencies. …
"I suggest that you should limit the present policy of the
Government to the assertion of our freedom in the case of all
commercial relations with foreign countries, and that you
should agree to my tendering my resignation of my present
office to his Majesty and devoting myself to the work of
explaining and popularising those principles of Imperial union
which my experience has convinced me are essential to our
future welfare and prosperity."
Mr. Balfour’s reply to this, when published, disclosed the
fact that he was wholly in agreement with Mr. Chamberlain, and
that they were now parting company in order to pursue a common
purpose more effectually on different lines. Both saw that
England was not to be drawn easily away from its fundamental
belief in freedom of trade; that what they had undertaken
would require much persuasive labor and considerable time, if
accomplished at all; wherefore Mr. Chamberlain accepted an
assignment to the missionary field of the imperialist cause,
while Mr. Balfour would continue his endeavor to hold a party
in waiting for the fruits of the mission, and in possession of
the government as long as circumstances might permit. The
programme was disclosed frankly in the two letters. In that of
Mr. Balfour he said:
"Agreeing as I do with you that the time has come when a
change should be made in the fiscal canons by which we have
bound ourselves in our commercial dealings with other
Governments, it seems paradoxical, indeed, that you should
leave the Cabinet at the time that others of my colleagues are
leaving it who disagree on that very point with us both. Yet I
can not but admit, however reluctantly, that there is some
force in the arguments with which you support that course,
based as they are upon your special and personal relation to
that portion of the controversy which deals with Colonial
preference. You have done more than any man, living or dead,
to bring home to the citizens of the Empire the consciousness
of Imperial obligation, and the interdependence between the
various fragments into which the Empire is geographically
divided. I believe you to be right in holding that this
interdependence should find expression in our commercial
relations as well as in our political and military relations.
I believe with you that closer fiscal union between the Mother
Country and her Colonies would be good for the trade of both,
and that, if much closer union could be established on fitting
terms, its advantage to both parties would increase as the
years went on and as the Colonies grew in wealth and
population.
"If there ever has been any difference between us in
connection with this matter it has only been with regard to
the practicability of a proposal which would seem to require,
on the part of the Colonies, a limitation in the all-round
development of a protective policy, and on the part of this
country the establishment of a preference in favour of
important Colonial products. On the first of these
requirements I say nothing, but if the second involves, as it
almost certainly does, taxation, however light, upon food
stuffs, I am convinced with you that public opinion is not yet
ripe for such an arrangement. …
"I feel, however, deeply concerned that you should regard this
conclusion, however well founded, as one which makes it
difficult for you, in your very special circumstances, to
remain a member of the Government. Yet I do not venture, in a
matter so strictly personal, to raise any objection.
"If you think you can best serve the interests of Imperial
unity, for which you have done so much, by pressing your views
on Colonial preference with the freedom which is possible in
an independent position, but is hardly compatible with office,
how can I criticise your determination? The loss to the
Government is great, but the gain to the cause you have at
heart may be greater still. If so, what can I do but
acquiesce?"
So Mr. Chamberlain left the Cabinet, with Mr. Balfour’s
blessing and God-speed, and went out to preach the gospel of
commercial imperialism, under the more carefully chosen name
of "fiscal reform." His co-laborer, who stayed at the helm of
State, was so favored by circumstances as to hold it for
somewhat more than another year. But the propagandism made no
satisfying progress in that year; it seems doubtful, indeed,
if Mr. Chamberlain won as many disciples as he lost from his
first following.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (August).
Employment of Children Act.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS WORKERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (August).
Communication to the Powers that were parties to the Berlin
Act of 1884-1885, asking their attention to the Administration
of the Congo State.
See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1903-1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (October).
Settlement of the Alaska boundary question.
See (in this Volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1903.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903-1904.
Canadian measures to establish British sovereignty over land
and sea of Hudson Bay region.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1903-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
Arbitration of boundary dispute between British Guiana
and Brazil.
See (in this Volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
Her rivals in the Persian Gulf.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1904.
{233}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (April).
The agreements of the Entente Cordiale with France.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (April-August).
Agitation over the Licensing Bill, which passed Parliament
after much bitter debate.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (July).
The question of Church Attendance in school hours.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (October).
The Dogger Bank incident of the voyage of the
Russian Baltic Fleet.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (OCTOBER-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904-1905.
The Esher Army Commission and its Report.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
Reopened controversy with the United States over Newfoundland
Fisheries questions.
See (in this Volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
Action with other Powers in forcing financial reforms in
Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
Unemployed Workmen Act.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (March).
Partially Representative Legislative Assembly created in
the Transvaal.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1905-1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (April).
Order relating to Underfed School Children.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (April).
Treaty with Nicaragua concerning the Mosquito Territory.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: NICARAGUA: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (June).
Change in the office of Speaker of the House of Commons.
After a service of more than ten years in the speaker’s chair
of the House of Commons, Mr. W. C. Gully resigned, on account
of failing health, and the Deputy Speaker, Mr. J. W. Lowther,
was chosen in his place, with no dissent. Subsequently, Mr.
Gully was raised to the peerage and received an annual grant
of £5000 for life.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (June).
Frauds in the sale of surplus army stores in South Africa.
An exciting scandal, connected with the sale of surplus army
stores, in South Africa, after the closing of the Boer War,
came to light in June. It was found that stores had been sold
to certain contractors at very low prices, and then
repurchased at high figures under new contracts entered into
with the same contractors. Several army officers, including
two colonels, were implicated in what the investigating
committee described mildly as "a cleverly arranged
contrivance."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (August).
New Defensive Agreement with Japan.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (August).
Resignation of the Viceroyalty of India by Lord Curzon.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
Resignation of the Balfour Ministry.
The Liberal Party in power.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman Prime Minister.
His Cabinet.
His attitude toward Ireland.
Strength of the Labor Party in Parliament.
Its representative in the Cabinet.
The Education Act of 1902, the apostasy of Mr. Chamberlain and
his Conservative Unionist followers from British Free Trade
principles, proclaimed in 1903, and the Licensing Act of 1904,
had each, in turn, been productive of bitter disagreements and
ruptures which rapidly lowered the strength of the party in
power. It had been in control of the Government since 1895,
when its opposition to Irish Home Rule was endorsed by a large
majority. The next election, in 1900, during the war in South
Africa, reinforced its Parliamentary support, and it could
count, during the two years following, on more than 400 votes
in the House of Commons, against about 268. After that period
its Parliamentary majority in the popular chamber ran down,
until, in the later months of 1905, it was no more than 75 or
76. This would have been an ample majority if it had
represented an equivalent preponderance of public support,
which, manifestly, it did not. For three years the
"by-elections,"—that is, the special elections ordered for
filling vacancies in the House as they occurred,—had been
going steadily against the Government, and nobody doubted that
a general election would throw it out. It was challenged again
and again to give the country an opportunity to express its
feeling in the matter, by a dissolution of Parliament, without
waiting for any nearer approach to the end of the term. This
it would not do; but, on the 4th of December, 1905, the
Premier, Mr. Balfour, surprised the country, and likewise his
own Cabinet, it was said, by placing his resignation in the
hands of the King.
This proceeding was regarded as an artful manoeuvre in
politics, for the embarrassment of the opposition. As
explained at the time by a journalist who wrote of it on the
side of the latter,—"The Liberals naturally desired that the
country should have an opportunity of going to the polls on
the clear issue raised by the record of ten years of Tory
administration. They regarded Mr. Balfour and his party as
being in the dock, and before they took office they wished to
have the verdict of the country returned by the votes of the
electors. But this, for equally obvious reasons, Mr. Balfour
wished to avoid. By resigning now, he compelled his opponents
to undertake the task, first of forming a new administration,
with all the risks which it involves of personal slight and
sectional differences, and, secondly, of facing the risk of
any untoward incident arising in the next few weeks which
might be used against the new-born government. It also would
enable them to obscure to a certain extent the real issue
before the country. Instead of simply voting for or against
Mr. Balfour and his administration, they would be asked to
express their opinion upon a new ministry, which had not had
any opportunity of giving the country a taste of its quality.
But as Mr. Balfour could not be compelled to stay in when he
had made up his mind to go out, and as it was such a relief to
get rid of him on any terms, the Liberals consented to face
the disadvantages of taking office before the dissolution."
{234}
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was invited by the King to form a
Ministry, and accepted the Commission. The organization of his
Cabinet was completed within the week following Mr. Balfour’s
resignation, and it took office at once. Parliament was
dissolved on the 8th of January, 1906, and a new Parliament
was summoned to meet on February 13th. Elections began on the
12th of January and were finished for the most part by the
19th. In their total result, they returned 375 Liberals to the
House of Commons, 55 Labor representatives, who would act on
most questions with the Liberals, and 83 Irish Nationalists,
whose attitude towards the new Ministry would depend upon its
attitude on Irish questions, and seemed more likely to be
friendly than otherwise. Against this array on the side of Sir
Henry and his colleagues, of pledged partisans and conditional
allies, the Conservative Unionists had Secured an Opposition
in the House that numbered only 157. The political overturn
was one of the most remarkable that the United Kingdom has
ever known.
The Cabinet as formed when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman took
office was made up as follows:
Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury,
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert T. Reid.
Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Herbert H. Asquith.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
Sir Edward Grey.
Secretary of State for the Colonies,
the Earl of Elgin.
Secretary of State for War,
Richard B. Haldane.
Secretary of State for Home Affairs,
Herbert J. Gladstone.
Secretary of State for India,
John Morley.
First Lord of the Admiralty,
Lord Tweedmouth.
President of the Board of Trade,
David Lloyd-George.
President of the Local Government Board,
John Burns.
Chief Secretary for Scotland,
John Sinclair.
President of the Board of Agriculture,
Earl Carrington.
Postmaster-General,
Sydney C. Buxton.
Chief Secretary for Ireland,
James Bryce.
Lord President of the Council,
the Earl of Crewe.
Lord of the Privy Seal,
the Marquis of Ripon.
President of the Board of Education,
Augustine Birrell.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
Sir Henry H. Fowler.
The following were not members of the cabinet, but formed part
of the administration:
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
the Earl of Aberdeen.
Under Secretary for the Colonies,
Winston L. Churchill.
First Commissioner of Works,
Louis Vernon-Harcourt.
Attorney-General,
John Lawson Walton.
Solicitor-General,
William S. Robson.
That Lord Rosebery had no place in the new Liberal
administration was due to his wide disagreement with most of
the leaders of his party on the question of Home Rule for
Ireland. When he succeeded Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister, in
1894, he quite distinctly discarded that line of Irish policy,
and his antagonism to it had undergone no change.
See, in Volume VI. of this work,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895)
On the other hand, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had remained
faithfully sympathetic with Mr. Gladstone’s idea of Ireland’s
due from England, and had reannounced his standing on it in a
recent speech. "My opinion," he said, "has long been known to
you. It is that the only way of healing the evils of
Ireland,—difficulties of her administration, of giving
contentment and prosperity to her people, and of making her a
strength instead of a weakness to the empire,—is that the
Irish people should have the management of their own domestic
affairs; and so far from this opinion fading and dwindling as
the years pass, it is becoming stronger, and, what is more, I
have more confidence in its realization. … If I were asked for
advice by an ardent Nationalist, I would say my desire is to
see the effective management of Irish affairs in the hands of
a representative Irish party. … I trust that the opportunity
of making a great advance on this question of Irish government
will not long be delayed, and when that opportunity comes my
firm belief is that a greater measure of agreement than
hitherto as to the ultimate solution will be found possible,
and that a keener appreciation will be felt of the benefits
that will flow to the Irish communities and British people
throughout the world, and that Ireland, from being
disaffected, impoverished, and discouraged, will take its
place as a strong, harmonious, and contented portion of the
empire."
That Sir Henry, maintaining this posture on the Irish question
of questions, could be the accepted leader of the Liberal
party and the Premier of Government, afforded clear evidence
that the party, and the country which confided power to that
party, were at least more nearly prepared to make the great
concession to Ireland than they were to refuse it; but the
question entered slightly into the parliamentary canvass,
though the Conservative-Unionists strove hard to make it the
dominant issue. The public mind was occupied so fully with the
fiscal and educational controversies of the last three years
that the motives in its voting came mostly from them. The
mandates of the vote were understood to be especially for the
amending of recent legislation on those subjects and on the
terms of the licensing of the liquor trade. It was equally
understood that Irish measures in the Gladstone spirit should
be looked for, not hastily undertaken, but in due time.
The fact of most impressive significance in the result of the
parliamentary elections was the sudden weight that had been
given in the House of Commons to the representation of Labor
by laboring men. Since 1903 the Labor Party had emerged in
British politics as a force to be taken into serious account.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1900-1906; 1903; and
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
Of its 55 members in the new Parliament a considerable number
had been elected by a combination of Liberal and Labor votes;
but the same combination went as often to the increase of the
Liberal representation. One large section of the Labor voters,
organized under the name of the Independent Labor Party, stood
aloof from such alliances entirely. It had been formed some
years before, under the lead of Mr. Keir Hardie, a Scottish
miner, with Socialistic beliefs, but opposed to the aims of
the Marxian Socialists, and expecting nothing substantially
beneficial to the working class from any political party. His
mission was to create a Labor Party that would fight its own
battles on its own ground. He made no great headway until the
Taff Vale decision of 1902 roused the British Trade Unions to
fight for their lives. That brought them into the ranks of the
Independent Labor Party, and prepared it for the powerful
showing it made in the elections of January, 1906, when it
polled 303,000 votes, and elected 30 members who are free
lances in the House. The remaining 25 Labor Members act with
these on labor questions, but otherwise are to be reckoned as
allies of the Liberal Party.
{235}
Foremost among these latter is Mr. John Burns, who represents
the Labor Party not only in Parliament but in the Ministry of
Government, being the first of his class to be called to a
Cabinet seat. A London editor who wrote of him when he took
that seat said:
"He has been a working engineer, a strike leader, labor
agitator, a London County Councilor for eighteen years, and
member of Parliament for fourteen. He is a great leader who
never had a party, but whose influence has been felt in every
labor movement in England for the last twenty years. The labor
and social policy of the London County Council has been
largely inspired and directed by him. He has also molded labor
legislation in Parliament. Mr. Burns has ‘scorned delights and
lived laborious days’ for the sake of the workers. He is an
avowed Socialist. He has never changed his principles, only
modified his methods. He is a real Fabian, a skillful
opportunist, a tireless worker, and a first-rate organizer.
Since he became a Socialist who does things, he has been
ostracized by the Socialists who only agitate. Mr. Burns is
exercising great influence within the Cabinet, and is one of
the men in the confidence and in the secrets of the Prime
Minister, who seeks his advice in many matters outside Mr.
Burns’s department."
The same writer gave the following account of the many
important duties and great responsibilities of the office
filled by Mr. Burns, as the President of the Local Government
Board, which supervises the administration of local government
in all England and Wales:
"As President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Burns has
multifarious duties committed to his charge. He has to
sanction local loans, supervise the finances of local
authorities, hold inquiries into proposed new undertakings,
exercise the (almost) legislative powers which Parliament has
delegated to him by way of provisional orders, and is armed
with large powers of initiative, inspection, revision, and
veto, so that in some respects he can revolutionize the whole
system of local administration. In the domain of Poor Law his
authority is paramount. He revises, for example, the rules and
regulations which guide the system of relief and the
administration of the Poor Law, passes plans for new
workhouses, settles the wages of the nurses and porters, and
fixes the amount of snuff (if any) which a pauper may receive.
Sanitary legislation is also under his supervision, as he acts
as Minister of Public Health, and beyond the more strictly
local governmental functions belonging to his department there
is the social side of his work, such as the administration of
the Allotments Acts, the Unemployed Act, inquiring into
housing conditions, etc."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
Sudden German hostility to the Anglo-French agreement
concerning Morocco.
Demand for an International Conference.
The Conference at Algeciras and the Act signed there.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
Pan-Islamic agitation in Egypt.
Menacing attitude of Turkey.
The Tabah incident.
See (in this Volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1905-1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
Action in Persia during the Constitutional Revolution.
See (in this Volume)
Persia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Aliens Act.
A new policy of restriction on the admission of aliens.
Its working.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
Progress in cooperative organizations of industry.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906.
Prevention of Corruption Act.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (March).
Report of Royal Commission on Labor Disputes.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (April).
Convention for determining and marking the Alaska Boundary Line.
See (in this Volume)
ALASKA: A. D. 1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (April-December).
Fate of the Liberal Education Bill, passed by the Commons
and killed by Amendments in the House of Lords.
Resolution of the Commons, contemplating a change of
Constitutional Law respecting the Legislative Powers of the
House of Lords.
The Education Bill was brought forward by the Government in
April and passed by the Commons in December.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1906
When the bill had been killed by destructive amendments in the
House of Lords, the Prime Minister, Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman, proposed to the House of Commons a
resolution, which was adopted, declaring that "the power of
the other house to alter or reject bills passed by this house
should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the
limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the House
of Commons shall prevail." In plainer words, this proposed an
amendment of what has been, since 1832, an unwritten but
understood rule of the British Constitution, namely, that the
House of Lords cannot defeat a measure which has been passed
by the Commons in successive parliaments, and thus certified,
by an intervening election, as being the embodiment of a
popular demand. The proposed amendment is to give the force of
law to a repeated enactment of the House of Commons, even
"within the limits of a single Parliament," and without the
intervention of an election.
The Premier has explained that this resolution is adopted only
to foreshadow action which the Government intends to take at
some convenient future time. So far as indicated by the
Premier’s resolution, he and his colleagues, if they do
anything affecting the peers in Parliament, will not touch the
existing composition of the aristocratic house, but will only
shorten the suspense in which it may hold legislation that is
persisted in by the popular house. As now exercised, the
practical effect of the suspensive veto of the Lords, if not
submitted to by the government, is to bring about what is
actually a referendum of the question at issue to the people.
The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate the
referendum and empower the Commons to override the opposition
of the Lords.
{236}
The legislative function of the House of Lords would not
differ substantially then from that performed by the President
of the United States. Acts of Congress require the approval of
the President to make them law. His disapproval sends them
back to Congress for reenactment, if two-thirds of both houses
persist in them; annulling them if they do not. The function
is simply a critical one, and involves no exercise of
legislative powers, if the language of our Constitution is
correct; for that instrument, in the first section of its
first article, says: "all legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."
Thus the reference of legislation to the President for his
approval or disapproval is not recognized as a grant to him of
participation in the exercise of legislative powers."
In this view the British House of Lords, when its part in
legislation is reduced, like that of the American President,
to mere criticism, expressed in approval or a suspensive veto,
cannot rightly be regarded as a legislative body, and
Parliament can hardly be counted among the bicameral
legislatures, as we have counted it hitherto. The House of
Commons will hold all the powers of legislation; the House of
Lords will be its official critic, commissioned only to make
it think twice in the enactment of some of its laws.
The King has no voice now in the making of British laws,
although, when his prerogatives are described, it is still
said that "he may refuse the royal assent to any bills." Two
hundred years ago it ceased to be prudent for royalty to
exercise that prerogative, and Queen Anne, in 1707, asserted
it in practice for the last time. The sovereigns of the
reigning House of Hanover have never enjoyed the satisfaction
of refusing assent to an act of Parliament. Even George III.
did not venture it, though he stoutly asserted his right.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (May).
Withdrawal of the last British garrison from Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1906 (MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (SEPTEMBER).
Army Order instituting the General Staff.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (December).
Broadened self-government extended to the Transvaal and the
Orange River Colony.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1905-1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (December).
Passage of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
Drink in its relation to crime.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Act legalizing Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister.
The following are the main provisions of the Act to legalize
marriage with a deceased wife’s sister which, after many years
of agitation by its advocates and many defeats in Parliament,
was passed finally in 1907:
"1. No marriage heretofore or hereafter contracted between a
man and his deceased wife’s sister, within the realm or
without, shall be deemed to have been or shall be void or
voidable, as a civil contract, by reason only of such
affinity: Provided always that no clergyman in holy orders of
the Church of England shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or
censure, whether civil or ecclesiastical, for anything done or
omitted to be done by him in the performance of the duties of
his office to which suit, penalty, or censure he would not
have been liable if this Act had not been passed:
"Provided also that when any minister of any church or chapel
of the Church of England shall refuse to perform such marriage
service between any persons who, but for such refusal, would
be entitled to have the same service performed in such church
or chapel, such minister may permit any other clergyman in
holy orders in the Church of England, entitled to officiate
within the diocese in which such church or chapel is situate,
to perform such marriage service in such church or chapel.
"Provided also that in case, before the passing of this Act,
any such marriage shall have been annulled, or either party
thereto (after the marriage and during the life of the other)
shall have lawfully married another, it shall be deemed to
have become and to be void upon and after the day upon which
it was so annulled, or upon which either party thereto
lawfully married another as aforesaid.
"2. No right, title, estate or interest, whether in possession
or expectancy, and whether vested or contingent at the time of
the passing of this Act, existing in, to, or in respect of,
any dignity, title of honour, or property, and no act or thing
lawfully done or omitted before the passing of this Act shall
be prejudicially affected nor shall any will be deemed to have
been revoked by reason of any marriage heretofore contracted
as aforesaid being made valid by this Act.
"3.
(1) Nothing in this Act shall remove wives from the class
of persons adultery with whom constitutes a right, on the
part of wives, to sue for divorce under the Matrimonial
Causes Act, 1857.
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the
Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, it shall not be lawful for a
man to marry the sister of his divorced wife, or of his
wife by whom he has been divorced, during the lifetime of
such wife.
"4. Nothing in this Act shall relieve a clergyman in holy
orders of the Church of England from any ecclesiastical
censure to which he would have been liable if this Act had not
been passed by reason of his having contracted or hereafter
contracting a marriage with his deceased wife’s sister.
"5. In this Act the word ‘sister’ shall include a sister of
the half-blood."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
Probation of Offenders Act.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY: PROBATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
French testimony to the good work of the English in Egypt.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1907 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (April-May).
Conference of Imperial and Colonial Ministers at London.
Discussing Preferential Trade, Imperial Defence, and other
subjects.
Resolutions adopted.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (May).
Proposed Councils Bill for Ireland rejected by the Irish
National Party.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1907 (May).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (July).
Capture of Kaid Sir Harry MacLean in Morocco for ransom, by
Raisuli.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1904-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Convention with Russia containing arrangements on the
subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet.
See EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal.
See (in this Volume)
LAW, AND ITS COURTS: ENGLAND.
{237}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Qualification of women for election to County and
Borough Councils.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August).
Patents and Designs Act.
See (in this Volume)
PATENTS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
Abortive Compromise Education Bill.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with France, Germany, Norway, and Russia guaranteeing
the integrity of Norway.
See ENGLAND:
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with France concerning Death Duties.
See (in this Volume)
DEATH DUTIES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908.
Institution of the Territorial Force.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908.
Proposals in the House of Lords of Reform in its Constitution.
Consequent, no doubt, on the increase of popular hostility to
the House of Lords which it had provoked by its dealing with
the Education Bill of 1906, and the serious threatenings of an
undertaking in the House of Commons to "end or mend" it as a
branch of Parliament, the Lords, in 1907, gave thought among
themselves to the expediency of a constitutional reformation
of their House. In February, a bill was proposed to them by
Lord Newton which provided in its first two articles as
follows:
"1.
(1) After the termination of the present session of
Parliament a writ of summons to attend and to sit and vote
in the House of Lords shall not be issued to any temporal
peer of the peerage of England entitled by descent to an
hereditary seat in the House of Lords (in this Act referred
to as an hereditary peer), unless he is a representative or
a qualified hereditary peer within the meaning of this Act,
nor to any lord spiritual, unless he is a representative
lord spiritual within the meaning of this Act."
"2.
For the purposes of this Act the expression ‘qualified
hereditary peer’ means an hereditary peer who possesses any
of the qualifications specified in the First Schedule to
this Act."
The schedule referred to was as follows:
"QUALIFICATIONS ENTITLING AN HEREDITARY PEER TO A WRIT
OF SUMMONS:
I. The holding at any time of any of the following Offices:—
1. High judicial office, within the meaning of the
Appellate Jurisdiction Acts, 1876 and 1887.
2. The office of First Lord of the Treasury, Secretary of
State, Chancellor of the Exchequer, President of the
Council, or Head (not being a permanent Civil Servant) of
any other Government Department.
3. The office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Secretary
to the Lord Lieutenant.
4. Office of Viceroy of India, or a Governor of the
Presidency of Madras or Bombay, or of Lieutenant-Governor
of any Province of India.
5. Office of Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada or
of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of High Commissioner
of South Africa, or of Governor of any Colony.
6. The Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary,
Parliamentary Secretary, or permanent Under Secretary, in
any Government Department.
7. Office of Lord of the Admiralty or member of the Army
Council.
8. Office of Minister plenipotentiary, or any higher
office, in His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service.
9. Office of Vice-Admiral, or any higher office, in His
Majesty’s Naval Forces, or of Lieutenant-General, or any
higher office, in His Majesty’s Land Forces.
"II. Election to serve in the House of Commons on not less
than two occasions before succeeding to the peerage."
In addition to the hereditary peers thus qualified to sit in
the House of Lords as proposed to be reformed, the Bill
provided for the election by the peers, from their own number,
of representatives, to the extent of one-fourth of their whole
number; and likewise for the election by the lords spiritual,
from their ranks, of representatives in the same proportion of
number; such representatives to form part of the House of
Lords in Parliament. It authorized, further, the appointment
by the King of peers for life, to be "peers of Parliament,"
these never to exceed one hundred in number.
Debate on the Bill in May resulted in the substitution for it
of a resolution, that "a Select Committee be appointed to
consider the suggestions which have from time to time been
made for increasing the efficiency of the House of Lords in
matters affecting legislation, and to report as to the
desirability of adopting them, either in their original or in
some modified form." The report of the Committee (twenty-five
in number, having Lord Rosebery for its elected chairman) was
not brought in until near the close of the following year. Its
recommendations were considerably on the lines of the Bill
described above. It suggested that the reformed House of Lords
should be made up of three classes of members, namely,
hereditary peers who had held certain high public offices—
much the same as those scheduled in Lord Newton’s Bill; two
hundred representative "Peers of Parliament," elected from the
whole body of the peerage, not for life, but for a single
Parliament, and ten lords spiritual, to include the two
archbishops and eight bishops to be elected. The
self-governing colonies, in the judgment of the Committee,
should be represented in the House of Lords, and twenty years
of service in the House of Commons should entitle an Irish
peer to a seat in it.
The plan submitted by the Committee would reduce the House
from 617 members to about 350. No action has been taken on the
report.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908.
The Small Holdings Act.
The first year of its operation.
In 1907 an Act passed Parliament which provided for the
acquisition by local authorities of land to be divided into
small holdings for sale or lease to buyers or tenants who
could not otherwise be placed on it for self-support. The
results from the first year’s operation of the Act was
reported in September, 1909, by the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries, which administers the law. The following are
statements from the report of the Board:
"Stated shortly, the result, so far as small holdings are
concerned, of the first year’s work since the Small Holdings
and Allotments Act, 1907, came into operation has been that
23,285 applications have been received by county councils for
373,601 acres, that 13,202 applicants have been approved
provisionally as suitable, that the estimated quantity of land
required for the suitable applicants is 185,098 acres, that
21,417 acres have been acquired by county councils, of which
11,346 acres have been purchased for £370,965, and 10,071
acres leased for total rents amounting to £11,209, that the
land acquired will provide for about 1,500 of the applicants,
and that 504 of them were in actual possession of their
holdings on December 31, 1908.
{238}
"It may seem at first sight that the progress that has been
made in satisfying the keen demand for small holdings which
the Act has disclosed has been small, but the figures do not
give at all an adequate idea of the amount of work that has
been actually done. It must be remembered that practically the
whole of the first six months of the year were occupied in the
preliminary work of constituting committees, issuing forms,
receiving and tabulating applications and holding local
inquiries, and that until this work was completed little
progress could be made in the acquisition of land. … The rate
at which land is being acquired is now increasing rapidly, and
we have little doubt that by Michaelmas, 1909, not less than
50,000 acres will have been obtained. In addition to the
holdings which have been provided by county councils, the
returns we have obtained show that over 700 applicants have
been supplied with holdings by landowners direct, mainly
through the intervention of the councils.
"In considering the results already accomplished it must also
be borne in mind that the problem is to fit particular men to
particular land, and not merely to acquire whatever land may
be in the market and to offer it in small holdings. The great
majority of the applicants desire land in close proximity to
their homes, and it is obviously more difficult to acquire a
large number of detached plots than to take a whole farm or
estate and divide it into a number of small holdings. …
"A striking feature of the applications made under the Act has
been the small extent to which the applicants desire to
purchase their holdings. Out of the 23,295 applications
received during the year, only 629, or 2.7 per cent.,
expressed a desire to purchase. … The Act imposes no direct
obligation on councils to provide houses, but we are of
opinion that where an applicant desires a holding to which he
will devote his whole time and from which he will get his
whole living councils should be prepared to erect a house and
the necessary buildings."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908 (December-March).
Appeals to other Powers for effective measures to
rescue Macedonia from its dreadful state.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
Anglo-Russian action in Persia.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D). 1907, and after.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
The Campaign of the Militant Woman Suffragists or Suffragettes.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
The disaffection in India.
Its character, causes, and meaning.
Hindu and Moslem feeling.
The past of British Government and its fruits.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
Negotiation by the President of the Board of Trade of a
General System of Conciliation and Arbitration Boards for
Settlement of Labor Disputes in the Railway Service.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Estimate of King Edward VII. as a Diplomatist.

Mr. Isaac N. Ford, the American newspaper correspondent in
London, has much well-informed opinion in Europe and America
to support him in the following estimate of the diplomatic
influence exerted by King Edward, which he expressed in
January, 1908:
"At the opening of King Edward’s reign Berlin was the center
of European diplomacy, as Paris had been when Bismarck entered
upon his series of machinations and triumphs. The personal
ascendency of the German Emperor was unchallenged in Europe. …
In the course of seven years conditions have been transformed.
London is now the diplomatic capital of Europe. Resentful
enemies like France have been reconciled; friendships with
America, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Spain have been
strengthened; strained relations with Russia and Germany have
been eased; and by the alliance with Japan forces have been
readjusted for the maintenance of existing order in the
Pacific. A new balance of power has been established in
Europe, and the diplomatic resources of the British Empire
have been reinvigorated and enlarged. While there have been
eminent statesmen in the British Foreign Office—Lord Lansdowne
and Sir Edward Grey—these transformations have been mainly
King Edward’s work. Fifty years hence there may be a true
sense of proportion, so that his services as an empire-builder
and a peace-maker can be judged aright."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Invitation of an International Naval Conference preliminary
to the establishment of an International Prize Court.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907
(appended to account of Second Peace Conference
at The Hague).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Municipal and County Offices opened to Women.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic agreements.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Passage of the Coal Mines Eight Hours Act.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
Rejection of the Liberal Licensing Bill by the House of Lords.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (March).
Communication to the Belgian Government respecting obligations
involved in its proposed annexation of the Congo State.
See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Resignation and Death of Prime Minister
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
Succession of Herbert H. Asquith.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was forced by ill health to
resign the premiership on the 5th of April, 1908, and his
death occurred on the 22d of the same month. He was succeeded
in the headship of the Government by Mr. Herbert H. Asquith,
previously Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose place in the
latter office was filled by Mr. David Lloyd-George. Mr.
Lloyd-George had been President of the Board of Trade, and
that office was now filled by Mr. Winston Churchill, while Mr.
Reginald McKenna became First Lord of the Admiralty.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and
Sweden for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with the United States respecting the Demarcation of
the International Boundary between the United States and Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1908 (APRIL).
{239}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (September).
Withdrawal of intervention in Macedonia.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (December).
Passage of "The Children Act."
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS DEPENDENTS AND OFFENDERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (December).
The Shipbuilding Agreement between Employers and
Trade Unions to prevent strikes and lockouts.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attitude on the question of the Austrian annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Old Age Pensions Act.
Its working.
Its disclosures of poverty.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS, &c.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Passage of the Indian Councils Bill.
Its provisions for popular representation in the
Legislative Councils of India.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1908-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Chief source of Food Supplies.
See (in this Volume)
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Concentration of Wealth.
See (in this Volume)
WEALTH, THE PROBLEMS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Development and Road Improvement Funds Act.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: GREAT BRITAIN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Naval questions.
"Dreadnought" building.
Distrust of Germany.
The Territorial Force, etc.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Official reports and statements concerning Public Education.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Passage of the Housing and Town-planning Act.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIAL BETTERMENT: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Principal Socialist organizations.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Report of Royal Commission on the working of the Poor Laws
and Relief Systems, and the existing pauperism of the
United Kingdom.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
Summary of the total prospective military defensive strength
of the Empire.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (January).
The Waterways Treaty with the United States, concerning
waters along the Canadian boundary.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
The Opening of Parliament.
The session of Parliament was opened by the King with due form
and ceremony on February 16. "The Royal procession from
Buckingham Palace to Westminster," says a report of the
occasion, "took place in the dim grey light of a typical
February afternoon, and the pageant lost much of its beauty in
consequence. In spite of the cold wind and the absence of the
genial sunshine which is such a valuable asset on occasions of
spectacular display, there appeared to be as many people as
ever along the route of the procession. These formal openings
of Parliament, which have become customary since the beginning
of the present reign, are clearly popular with those of the
King’s subjects who know nothing, except by hearsay, of the
impressive scenes which are to be witnessed in the House of
Lords. The immense crowds who assembled to watch the King and
Queen pass yesterday, waiting patiently for hours in order to
enjoy a few minutes’ ecstatic sight-seeing, welcomed their
Majesties with a cordiality of the meaning of which there
could be no doubt. The King and Queen, in their wonderful gold
coach, with its sides of glass, must have been gratified with
the respect and affection which were manifested from all
quarters."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
Debate in Parliament on the annexation of the
Congo State by Belgium.
Recognition of the annexation dependent on reforms.
See (in this Volume)
CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February).
Represented in International Opium Commission at Shanghai.
See (in this Volume)
OPIUM PROBLEM.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Representation of the People Bill.
Proposed Universal Suffrage, including women.
Its second reading.
On the 20th of March, 1909, the second reading of a bill
described as "the Representation of the People Bill" was moved
and seconded in the House of Commons. Its provisions were
substantially for universal suffrage, including women. In
explaining the measure, the member who moved the second
reading—a representative of the Labor party, Mr. Howard—said:
"It was difficult, if not almost impossible, to deal with a
reform of the franchise without at the same time dealing with
woman suffrage, and it was difficult to deal with woman
enfranchisement without at the same time making some
alteration in the existing franchise law which should meet the
condition of the new elements proposed to be placed on the
register. The House must face the situation as a whole and
handle the two reforms in one scheme, because by a
coordinated Bill there would be a better chance of getting
nearer a settlement. In the Bill that he submitted to the
House there was no abolition of any old franchise. It proposed
to create a residential franchise in order to do away with the
hardships which any one with a knowledge of registration knew
to exist in connexion with the occupation vote of men. The
second clause provided for a restriction of plural voting, and
the third clause related to the removal of the sex
disqualification."
Before debate began another member presented a monster
petition against the political enfranchisement of women, said
to contain 243,000 signatures.
The attitude of the Government toward the bill was explained
by Mr. Asquith, the Premier. It was well known, he said, that
on the issue whether women should be granted the suffrage
Ministers were not of one mind. But they were strongly in
favour of a wide reform of the existing suffrage. They desired
the abolition of plural voting, the disappearance of the
artificial distinctions between occupiers and lodgers, the
material shortening of the period of qualification, and an
effective simplification of the machinery of registration. But
any measure to bring about these reforms ought, in his
opinion, if it was to take its place on the Statute-book, to
proceed from the responsible Government of the day, and to be
carefully remoulded in the light of prolonged Parliamentary
discussion. For these reasons he thought it was not necessary
that the members of the Government should vote for the second
reading of the Bill under consideration.
After some hours of debate the closure was moved and the
second reading of the bill was carried by 157 votes against
122.
{240}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Defeat of the Progressives in the London County
Council Election.
See (in this Volume)
LONDON: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March).
Cession by Siam of suzerainty over three States
in the Malay Peninsula.
See (in this Volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March-July).
The question of " Dreadnought" building, with reference to
the accelerated expansion of the German Navy.
Debates in Parliament and excitement in the country.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April).
The National Debt of the United Kingdom.
The following official statement of the national debt of the
United Kingdom was published in April, 1909:
"On the 1st April, 1908, the aggregate gross liabilities of
the State amounted to £762,326,051. On the 1st April, 1909,
the corresponding figure was £754,121,309, showing a reduction
of £8,204,742.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April).
Announced Governmental projects of Afforestation, and other
measures for Development of Natural Resources.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: GREAT BRITAIN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April-December).
Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget.
Its features of taxation, denounced as Socialistic.
Seven months of vehement debate.
Adopted by the Commons and rejected by the Lords.
Warnings to the Lords against their action.
Preparation for appeal to the people.
The 29th of April, 1909, when the financial proposals of the
Government for meeting the needs of the coming year, called
"the Budget," were brought before Parliament, and the 30th of
the following November, when, after seven months of arduous
and angry debate, and after their adoption by a great majority
of the Commons, the Bill embodying them was overwhelmingly
rejected by the Lords, will be memorable dates in English
history if the consequences of the action of the Peers are
what, at this writing, they seem likely to be. Even failing
those consequences, the production of the Budget will be in
itself an event of no small moment, from what it signifies of
the development of democracy in Great Britain.
As a formulated "Finance Bill," the Budget was not submitted
to the House of Commons and to the public in print until the
28th of May. It was then entitled "A Bill to grant certain
Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to
alter other Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs
and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and the National Debt,
and to make other provisions for the Financial Arrangements of
the Year." Until then its provisions were known only from the
statement of them made four weeks before by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Mr. David Lloyd-George, in a speech extended
through several hours, which even his opponents were forced to
characterize as "a wonderful effort."
The Chancellor’s explanation of the Budget rested primarily on
the fact that an anticipated deficit of £15,762,000 required
to be filled from new sources of revenue. Of the main causes
of the deficit he said: "Were I dealing with a shortage due
only to a temporary cause like forestalments, I might have
resorted to some temporary shift which would have carried me
over until next year when the revenue would resume its normal
course. But unfortunately I have to reckon not merely with an
enormous increase in expenditure this year, but an inevitable
expansion of some of the heaviest items in the course of the
coming years. What is the increase of expenditure due to? It
is very well known that it must be placed to the credit of two
items, and practically two items alone. One is the Navy, and
the other is old-age pensions. Now I have one observation
which I think I am entitled to make about both. … The
increased expenditure under both these heads was substantially
incurred with the unanimous assent of all political parties in
this House. There was, it is true, a protest entered on behalf
of honourable members below the gangway against increased
expenditure in the Navy, but as far as the overwhelming
majority of members in this House are concerned the increase
has received their sanction and approval. I am entitled to say
more. The attitude of the Government towards these two
branches of increased expenditure has not been one of rushing
a reluctant House of Commons into expense which it disliked,
but rather of resisting appeals coming from all quarters of
the House for still further increases under both heads. …
"We are told that we ought not to have touched old-age
pensions, at least not at the present moment, when heavy
liabilities were in sight in connexion with the defence of the
country. I may point out that when we introduced our Old-Age
Pensions Bill that emergency had not arisen. But, apart
altogether from that, we had no honourable alternative left.
We simply honoured a cheque drawn years ago in favour of the
aged poor, which bore at its foot the signatures of all the
leaders of political parties in this country. They had all
promised pensions at election after election, and great
political parties have no right to make promises to poor
people in return for political support, valuable to them, and
all these people had to give, and then time after time return
the bill with ‘No assets’ written across it."
Proceeding next to survey the "inevitable expansion" of future
expenditure to which he had referred at the outset, and which
could be foreseen in connection with the navy and with social
reform, the Chancellor dealt at length on the demands that
were pressing from the latter side and would not be postponed.
"What the Government have to ask themselves," he said, "is
this: Can the whole subject of further social reform be
postponed until the increasing demands made upon the National
Exchequer by the growth of armaments has ceased? Not merely
can it be postponed, but ought it to be postponed? Is there
the slightest hope that if we deferred consideration of the
matter we are likely within a generation to find any more
favourable moment for attending to it? I confess that, as to
that, I am rather pessimistic. And we have to ask ourselves
this further question—If we put off dealing with these social
sores are the evils which arise from them not likely to grow
and to fester until finally the loss which the country
sustains will be infinitely greater than anything it would
have to bear in paying the cost of an immediate remedy?
{241}
There are hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in
this country now enduring hardships for which the sternest
judge would not hold them responsible; hardships entirely due
to circumstances over which they have not the slightest
command—the fluctuations and changes of trade, or even of
fashions, ill-health, and the premature breakdown or death of
the bread-winner. … Last year, while we were discussing the
Old-Age Pensions Bill, all parties in this House recognized
fully and freely that once we had started on these lines the
case for extension was irresistible. The leader of the
Opposition, in what I venture to regard as the most notable
speeches he has probably delivered during this Parliament,
recognized quite boldly that, whichever party was in power,
provision would have to be made in some shape or other for
those who are out of work through no fault of their own, and
those who are incapacitated for work owing to physical causes
for which they are not responsible."
The speaker then developed at length the intentions of the
Government on these lines of social reform, which will have to
include undertakings of some system like the German, of
compulsory insurance against sickness, accident and
unemployment, and which will have to look to the organization
of labor exchanges and to the opening of wider fields for
employment, by development of neglected resources of the
country, through afforestation, through promotion of
agriculture, and the extension and improvement of roads.
And now, at last, he began to unfold his plans for raising the
means with which to deal with all these augmented demands on
the Government, and started them with a schedule of increased
taxes on automobiles. Further details of his scheme are
summarized in the following, from The Times "Review of
Parliament," next morning:
"The right honourable gentleman was listened to with intense
attention when he proceeded to announce an increase of the
income-tax and of the estate duty. He proposed that for earned
incomes under £2,000 the tax should remain at 9d. but that
between £2,000 and £3,000 it should be 1s., and that all other
incomes now liable to the shilling tax should pay 1s. 2d.
Holding that the family man was entitled to more relief than
the bachelor, he proposed that on all incomes under £500, in
addition to existing abatements, a special abatement should be
allowed of £10 for every child under 16 years of age. He hoped
to get £160,000 by the partial restoration of the shilling
duty and £3,000,000 from the additional 2d. on the higher
incomes. There was also to be a super-tax on incomes exceeding
£5,000, to be levied on the amount by which such incomes
exceeded £3,000. The tax would be at the rate of 6d. in the
pound. Exclamations denoting great disapproval arose from the
Unionist benches when this was announced. The yield from this
super-tax, Mr. Lloyd-George explained, would be in a full year
£2,300,000; but this year not more than £500,000. He next came
to the Death duties. There would be no change in the case of
estates up to £5,000, but between this limit and the limit of
two millions graduation would be steepened. The duty on
estates between £5,000 and £10,000 would be 4 per cent.;
"between £10,000 and £20,000, 5 per cent.; £20,000 to £40,000,
6 per cent.; £40,000 to £70,000, 7 per cent.; £70,000 to
£100,000, 8 per cent.; £100,000 to £150,000, 9 per cent.;
£150,000 to £200,000, 10 per cent.; £200,000 to £400,000, 11
per cent.; £400,000 to £600,000, 12 per cent.; £600,000 to
£800,000, 13 per cent.; £800,000 to £1,000,000, 14 per cent.,
and above £1,000,000, 15 per cent. This new scale was
estimated to yield £2,550,000 this year, £4,200,000 next year,
and afterwards £4,400,000. The settled Estate duty he raised
from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. From this source he hoped to
get £50,000 this year and £375,000 in 1910-1911. The Legacy
and Succession duty was to be raised in some cases from 3 per
cent. to 5 per cent., and in all others to 10 per cent. The
yield from this next year would be £1,300,000, and would
increase in the course of time to £2,150,000. Property
alienated inter vivos within five years from death was
to be liable to duty. Objects of national and scientific
interest would only be chargeable for duty when they were
actually sold. There were to be increased duties in bonds to
bearer and in stock and share transfers. The estimated yield
from the increased Stamp Duties would be this year £650,000.
"It was at this point in his speech that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer required rest and that the sitting was suspended.
When in half-an-hour’s time it was resumed, the right
honourable gentleman continued his speech with renewed vigour.
He dealt at considerable length with the subject of licenses,
dwelling on the value of the monopoly granted to the liquor
trade and arguing that the toll exacted by the public was
ludicrously inadequate. He explained in detail a number of
changes which he proposed to effect, the chief being a uniform
charge of 50 per cent., subject to a minimum rate in
urban areas according to population. For clubs there would be
a poundage rate of 3d. on the amount taken for the sale of
liquor. The yield from his revision of the liquor licensing
law would be £2,600,000.
"Then he turned to land, drawing a marked distinction between
the agricultural landowner and the urban landowner, of whom he
spoke with some scorn. He proposed to levy a tax on the value
accruing to land in the future through the enterprise of the
community, taking the land apart from buildings and other
improvements. This duty of 20 per cent. on unearned increment
would be payable on two occasions—when land was sold and when
land passed at death. A preliminary valuation of the land at
the price which it might be expected to fetch at the present
time would be necessary; and as the tax was to be imposed only
on the unearned increment subsequently accruing on that
valuation, the yield would probably be only £50,000 in 1909,
but in future years it should prove a fruitful source of
revenue. It was further proposed to levy an annual duty of one
halfpenny in the pound on the capital value of undeveloped
land and undeveloped minerals. Until the proposed valuation of
the land of the United Kingdom on a capital basis was
completed, it would be impossible to estimate the yield of
this duty, but till then the duty would be calculated on the
declarations of the owners, and in the current year he
expected it to bring in £350,000. A 10 per cent. reversion
duty was to be imposed on any benefit accruing to a lessor on
the termination of a lease, and from this source a yield of
£100,000 was anticipated. The three land taxes were,
accordingly, calculated to produce £500,000 in the current
year.
{242}
"He next dealt with indirect taxation. He proposed to raise
the present duty on spirits by 3s. 9d. per gallon. This would
justify an increase in the retail price of whisky of one
half-penny per glass, which would recoup the publican for the
additional duty and leave him something more to mitigate the
pressure of the new duties on licenses. The yield, during the
current year, he estimated at £1,600,000. He also proposed to
increase the duty on unmanufactured tobacco from 3s. to 3s.
8d. per lb., with equivalent additions to the rates for
cigars, cigarettes, and manufactured tobacco, the return from
which he estimated at £1,900,000 during the current year and
£2,250,000 for a full year.
"The total estimated revenue was £162,590,000 and the total
estimated expenditure £162,102,000, leaving a margin of
£488,000 for contingencies. In conclusion, the right
honourable gentleman—anticipating the charge that he was
imposing very heavy taxation for a time of peace—declared it
was a war Budget. The Government had declared implacable war
against poverty. It was 8 o’clock when the right honourable
gentleman finished, amid the cheers of his supporters."
That Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget was a gage of battle and that
the fight over it was fierce is known to everybody, for the
din of the conflict penetrated to every corner of every land.
The key-note of the outcry against it was sounded in The
Times of next morning, which opened its editorial comment
with these words:
"One general impression will be very widely made by the
complicated and portentous Budget which Mr. Lloyd-George
expounded at enormous length yesterday. That is that the huge
deficit of nearly sixteen millions is to be raised almost
exclusively at the cost of the wealthy and the fairly
well-to-do. They are struck at in all sorts of ways, through
the income-tax, the legacy duties, the estate duties, the
stamps upon their investments, their land, their royalties,
their brewery dividends, and their motor-cars. So when Mr.
Lloyd-George exclaims rather theatrically—‘Mr. Emmott, this
is a war Budget,’ his words carry a meaning which he did not
intend. He talks of waging war against poverty, but that is
never really waged by unjust exactions from those whose custom
prevents a worse poverty than any we know; and whose brains
and capital count for at least as much as thews and sinews.
Unless men exempt from income-tax either smoke or drink, they
do not pay a single penny towards making up a deficit mainly
due to a pension scheme of which they reap the whole benefit.
The doctrine of social ransom has never been carried quite so
far."
So it was branded by its opponents as a "Socialist Budget" and
its authors as allies of Socialism, throughout the campaign.
This denunciation was applied especially to the tax on
unearned increments of value in land, as such increments
should occur hereafter. On that point of opposition to the
Budget Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of the Government,
speaking at a public meeting in London, had this to say: "The
increment duty is a tax of 20 per cent. on the increase in the
capital value of certain kinds of land which is shown on the
occasion of its transfer or devolution, and which is not
attributable to the efforts or to the expenditure either of
the owner or the occupier. That is what the increment duty is.
Now what is it not? I spoke a few moments ago of certain
classes of land. Let me ask you to observe, first, what are
the kinds of landed property which are altogether exempted
from the scope of this taxation. In the first place, all
agricultural land which has no building value above its
agricultural value; next, small properties occupied by their
owners; thirdly, property belonging to local authorities;
again, property held for public or charitable purposes; and,
finally, property belonging to statutory companies, such as
railways, which cannot be used for other than statutory
purposes. …
"Now, suppose the case of land which does not fall within any
of those exempted categories, how is the duty charged? Here,
again, there is a great deal of misapprehension about it, so
it is better to state the case as clearly as one can. You
start with the site value of the land at the present moment,
and by site value—I am not going into technicalities—we mean,
roughly speaking, the value of the land divested of the
buildings. You do not go back into the past, you take things
as they are; you do not rip up the previous history; you do
not interfere with existing or past contracts. You give to
every man, however he has acquired it, the full and
undisturbed enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and property
which he at present possesses. Starting with that datum line,
you will see that in years to come, when that piece of land is
transferred by sale—it may be by lease—or devolves upon death,
the site value (you are comparing like with like, mind you) at
that date—that is to say, the value after giving the owner and
every one who has been interested in the land credit for all
expenditure they have made in the way of improvement and
development in the interval—comparing site with site, if you
find an increment in value there, you say that it is an
increment due to the community, to social causes, to causes
over which the owner was no more responsible than you or I,
and that it is not unfair in point of justice, and that it is
in the highest degree expedient in point of policy that the
State should be entitled to claim for itself in relief of the
necessities of the same community some part—not any
exaggerated or exorbitant part—but some part, of the increment
which has so accrued. I may point out that there is no duty
chargeable at all. So tender has my friend Mr. Lloyd-George
(laughter and cheers) been to the interests concerned—he is a
man of a most sympathetic nature—sometimes I am disposed to
think he is of almost too impressionable a nature when appeals
of this kind are addressed to him—so tender has he been of all
these interests that he has agreed that no duty should be
chargeable unless the increment value amounts to at least 10
per cent., and where it is over, the first 10 per cent. should
escape free. That is the increment duty which Lord Rothschild
tells you—I think I am not misquoting him—is rank and
undiluted Socialism, and which Lord Lansdowne says is going to
shake the very foundations of civilized society. …
{243}
"The propriety and justice of taxing this kind of increment,
in the case of these classes of land, rests upon the most
solid ground both of authority and experience. It has been
advocated for generations by the most eminent economists. It
has been recommended in one shape or another by more than one
Royal Commission. It was approved in principle more than once
even by the late non-progressive House of Commons. It has been
put in practice in various forms for local purposes in not a
few Continental municipalities and in many of our own
Colonies, and, I believe, always with successful results. And
let me add, by way of climax to that catena of authority, that
it is at this moment, or at any rate was a few weeks ago, the
alternative proposal put forward by the Conservative party in
the Reichstag in Germany—an increment duty, not for local but
for Imperial purposes, was the alternative proposal to the
Budget of Prince Bülow put forward by the Conservative party
in the Reichstag in Germany, and this is rank Socialism!"
Next to the proposed land taxes, the most bitterly opposed
feature of the Budget was the increased revenue to be exacted
from the licensed monopolists of the liquor trade. Everything,
however, in its new taxation was denounced by the
Conservatives, who set against it their own project of
obtaining increased revenues by returning to the protective
tariff which England had abandoned three-quarters of a century
ago. The cry for what they preferred to call "tariff reform"
had been silenced since the election of 1906, when the
electors of the Kingdom rejected Mr. Chamberlain's revived
protectionism by an overwhelming vote. Now it was raised
again, and fully made the prime article in the Conservative
creed, as it had not been before.
It was not until the 4th of November that the Finance Bill was
brought to its third reading in the House of Commons, and was
passed, by the heavy majority of 379 to 149. From the
beginning it was known, of course, that the measure had few
friends in the House of Lords, and would go down in defeat
there if the Peers ventured to assume the right to negative a
money Bill. For many generations they had not disputed the
claim of the Commons to exclusive control of revenue
legislation; but a theory had now been mooted, that Mr.
Lloyd-George’s Budget Bill differed from a mere money Bill by
carrying Socialistic implications tacked on to it, which the
House of Lords was under no obligation to accept. Whether the
Lords would or would not be bold enough to act on this theory
and throw down the Bill, as they had thrown down so much of
the non-financial legislation of the Liberal Government, had
been a serious question throughout the debates. Sir Edward
Grey said of it, in a speech at Leeds, in August:
"As to the fate of the Budget—Is it going to be destroyed by
the House of Lords or is it not? The leaders of the Tory
party—with whom the decision rests—are very cautious in
expressing their opinions. Some of the rank and file have said
the House of Lords is going to destroy the Budget, or have
spoken as if it were so. But the leaders—Mr. Balfour, Lord
Lansdowne, and so forth—have been very cautious. They are
great partisans in this matter of the open door, or, perhaps I
should say, of two open doors. They have studiously kept two
doors open, and as far as Lord Lansdowne’s utterances go, he
has kept the door open for passing the Budget in the House of
Lords or rejecting it. He says the House of Lords is bound to
decide so that the people should be properly consulted, and
that that is the function of the House of Lords, to protect
the right of the people to have their say on the subject. A
very nice function if only it was performed impartially; but
when it is a function which has been in abeyance for the
greater part of the last 20 years, and is only to be erected
into operation when a Liberal Government comes into office, it
is not a function for which we can have much respect. But,
nevertheless, it is so in our Constitution at present that the
House of Lords is a weapon—a great gun, if you like to call it
so—which can be pointed only against Liberal measures—not
against Conservative measures—and which is in the hands of the
Conservative party. Now there is the Budget going presently to
the House of Lords; there is the gun pointing when it arrives
there; there is the Conservative finger on the trigger. Are
they going to fire the gun or not? They do not know themselves
yet. They are debating in their own minds what will happen if
they fire the gun. Will they destroy the Budget, or will the
recoil be more injurious to themselves? Or, perhaps, will the
gun burst altogether if they let it off? We know what their
wishes and inclinations are; what we do not know at the
present time is how much nerve they have got. But of this I am
convinced—whatever the House of Lords may do, when the time
comes for an appeal to the country, it will be an appeal on
this Budget as a Free Trade Budget, and against the
alternative of tariff reform.
Others among the prominent Liberals spoke with more temper of
the threatened action of the Lords. Mr. Winston Churchill, for
example, at Leicester, in September, said: "The rejection of
the Budget by the House of Lords … would be a violent rupture
of constitutional custom and usage extending over 300 years
and recognized during all that time by the leaders of every
party in the State. It would involve a sharp and sensible
breach with the traditions of the past; and what does the
House of Lords depend upon if not upon the traditions of the
past? It would amount to an attempt at revolution not by the
poor, but by the rich; not by the masses, but by the
privileged few; not in the name of progress, but in that of
reaction; not for the purpose of broadening the framework of
the State, but greatly narrowing it. Such an attempt,
gentlemen, whatever you may think of it, such an attempt would
be historic in its character, and the result of the battle
fought upon it, whoever wins, must inevitably be not of an
annual, but of a permanent and final character. The result of
such an election must mean an alteration of the veto of the
House of Lords; if they win they will have asserted their
right, not merely to reject legislation of the House of
Commons, but to control the finances of the country, and if
they lose we will smash to pieces their veto. I say to you
that we do not seek the struggle, we have our work to do; but
if it is to come, it could never come better than now."
Very soon after the Bill had been passed over to the House of
Lords it was known that the Conservative leaders had consented
to its death in that body. What may be called the death
sentence was pronounced on the 22d of November, when Lord
Lansdowne moved the following amendment to a motion for the
second reading of the Bill: "That this House is not justified
in giving its consent to this Bill until it has been submitted
to the judgment of the country."
{244}
Speaking to the motion with great seriousness he said: "I have
been in this House more than 40 years, I owe everything to its
indulgence, and I say from the depth of my heart that it is my
desire to do nothing unworthy of your high reputation or your
great place in the Constitution of this country. But I believe
that the worst and most damaging thing that you could do would
be that you should fail those who look to you as the guardians
of their greatest constitutional right, the right to be
consulted when fundamental political changes are demanded by
the Government of the day; and, my lords, depend upon it that
by rejecting this Bill you will, on the one hand, insist that
that right shall be respected; you will not usurp the function
of granting aid and supplies to the Crown; you will not
pronounce a final verdict upon this Bill, bad though you may
believe it to be; but you will say that it is a Bill to which
you have no right to give your indispensable consent until you
are assured by the people of the country that they desire it
to pass into law."
In the week of debate which followed many speeches of notable
force and impressiveness were made on both sides; but,
unquestionably, the weightiest, in reasoning and feeling, were
those which came from opponents of the Budget who would not
join their associates in the step proposed, but warned them of
dangers involved, to the existence of their House and to the
future of parliamentary government, from constitutional
changes which no man could forecalculate. On the latter point,
Lord Rosebery begged his fellows of the peerage to "remember
this: The menaces which were addressed to this House in old
days were addressed by statesmen of a different school and
under a different balance of constitutional forces in this
country. The menaces addressed to you now come from a wholly
different school of opinion, who wish for a single Chamber and
who set no value on the controlling and revising forces of a
second Chamber—a school of opinion which, if you like it and
do not dread the word, is eminently revolutionary in essence,
if not in fact. I ask you to bear in mind that fact when you
weigh the consequences of the vote which you are to give
to-morrow night. ‘Hang the consequences,’ said my noble friend
Lord Camperdown last night. That is a noble sentiment and a
noble utterance. It is a kind of Balaklava charge, and nothing
more intrepid could be said by any of us if we had not to
weigh the consequences, not to the individual, but to the
State; and you should think once, you should think twice, and
thrice, before you give a vote which may involve such enormous
constitutional consequences."
Lord Balfour, while condemning the Bill, condemned still more
the proposition that the House of Lords would do its duty in
compelling a referendum to the people on the measure. A
question in finance, he said, differs from all others in its
unfitness for this treatment in Great Britain. "If you are to
establish a system whereby this House or any other authority
had the right of establishing a referendum as it is called—a
reference to the people in matters of finance—you would spoil
and destroy the control of the other House of Parliament over
the Government, and you would make, I venture to say, perhaps
the most momentous change in the Constitution, as it has grown
up, which has been made in the whole history of that
Constitution. Take it how you like, if you pass this
resolution, if you make it a precedent—I care not with what
safeguards you accompany it, whether you say it is only to be
done on extreme occasions or by any other safeguard—you have
made a change in the practice and in the Constitution which
will prevent things going on as they have gone on up to the
present time. My lords, if you win, the victory can at most be
a temporary one. If you lose you have altered and prejudiced
the position, the power, the prestige, the usefulness of this
House, which I believe every one of you honours and desires to
serve as heartily and as thoroughly as I do myself. If you win
you are but beginning a conflict."
Lord James, one of the ablest of the Law Lords, and Lord
Cromer, were other opponents of the Budget who earnestly
counselled the Upper House not to interfere with the action of
the Commons on this measure of finance. From the side of the
few Liberals among the peers came other weighty words of
admonition, spoken especially by the calm and thoughtful Lord
Morley and by the Lord Chancellor, the presiding officer of
their House. "No one," said the latter, "will be so simple as
to believe that the only question which the country will
consider will be the question whether this Bill ought to pass
into law. Other and graver questions will be raised. We have
been in office for four years. In 1906 our whole time in the
House of Commons was taken up by passing an Education Bill. It
came to this House. It was wrecked, and the whole labour of
that Session was thrown away. The following year, 1907, was
not a year of very great enterprise of a legislative
character. In 1908 the whole time of the House of Commons was
spent in passing the Licensing Bill, a measure the loss of
which I regret more than I regret the loss of any other. It
came up to this House. It was not alive when it came here. It
had perished by the stiletto in Berkeley-square before it ever
saw this House. Now, again in 1909, after a Session of
unexampled labour, the House of Commons has presented to your
lordships the proof of many, many months of arduous work in a
domain entirely their own; and this House is going to destroy
the Finance Bill of 1909 and to refuse supplies. It is, in my
opinion, impossible that any Liberal Government should ever
again bear the heavy burden of office unless it is secured
against a repetition of treatment such as our measures have
had to undergo for the last four years. If we fail in the
coming general election, assuming that his Majesty is pleased
to dissolve Parliament, it will only be the beginning of a
conflict which can end only in one way. If we succeed, I hope
we shall not flinch from that which will have to follow."
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Spiritual Lords generally
refrained from taking sides on what they regarded as a
political question; but the Archbishop of York construed his
duty differently, and added his voice to the remonstrance
against Lord Landsdowne’s motion. Close upon midnight,
November 30, the House divided on that motion and it was
carried, rejecting the Finance Bill, by a vote of 350 to 75.
So big a vote—such a swarming of titled legislators to record
it—had not been known within the memory of living men.
{245}
Three days later, on the 3d of December, the Premier, Mr.
Asquith, rose in the House of Commons and moved the adoption
of the following declaration:
"That the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass
into law the financial provision made by this House for the
service of the year is a breach of the Constitution and a
usurpation of the rights of the Commons."
Speaking to this motion, he said, in part:
"When, a short time ago, the Finance Bill received its third
reading, as it left this House it represented, I believe, in a
greater degree than can be said of any measure of our time,
the mature, the well-sifted, the deliberate work of an
overwhelming majority of the representatives of the people
upon a matter which, by the custom of generations and by the
course of a practically unbroken authority, is the province of
this House, and of this House alone. In the course of a week,
or a little more than a week, the whole of this fabric has
been thrown to the ground. For the first time in English
history the grant of the whole of the Ways and Means for the
Supply and the Services of the year, the grant made at the
request of the Crown to the Crown by the Commons, has been
intercepted and nullified by a body which admittedly has not
the power to increase or to diminish one single tax or to
propose any substitute or alternative for any one of the
taxes. The House of Commons would, in the judgment of his
Majesty’s Government, be unworthy of its past and of the
traditions of which it is the custodian and the trustee if it
allowed another day to pass without making it clear that it
does not mean to brook the greatest indignity, and, I will
add, the most arrogant usurpation (loud cheers), to which for
more than two centuries it has been asked to submit."
After a short debate, the House divided on the motion, and it
was adopted by 349 against 134.
On the afternoon of the same day the King prorogued Parliament
to the 15th of January, 1910, this being preparatory to the
dissolution and appeal to the people which the action of the
Lords had made necessary.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (January-March).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
A Majority Vote in the Commons for removing Disabilities
from Roman Catholics.
A bill for the removal of remaining disabilities from Roman
Catholics passed its second reading in the House of Commons on
the 14th of May, by a vote of 133 to 123. Not being a
Government measure, the crowded programme of business for the
session gave no hope that it could be carried into law; but
the vote was an encouragement.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
Resolution of the House of Commons in favor of the Payment
of Members and the public payment of election expenses.
The following resolution was introduced in the House of
Commons on the 12th of May, 1909, by Mr. Higham, of York:
"That in the opinion of this House the non-payment of members
and the liability of candidates for the returning officers’
expenses render it impossible for many constituencies to
exercise a free choice in their selection of candidates and
election of members of Parliament; and this House is of
opinion that any measure of general electoral reform passed
before the dissolution of this Parliament, and coming into
force upon or after the dissolution, should be accompanied by
arrangements for the payment of members elected to serve in
Parliament and for the transfer to the Imperial Exchequer of
the financial responsibility for the returning officers’
expenses incurred in the conduct of such elections."
Mr. Harcourt, for the Government, accepted the motion at once.
He pointed out that the expenditure entailed, if members were
paid £300 a year, would be £200,000 annually; but this was not
a valid argument against the change. For his part, he could
not see why politics should be the only profession "run by
amateurs." He was, therefore, not frightened by the prospect
of an Assembly of professional politicians. The time had gone
by when the country could select its legislators solely from
the leisured class; public servants deserved to be paid.
Most of the speakers in a debate of three hours favored the
resolution, and it was then adopted, by 242 votes against 92.
No legislation in accordance with it has yet been undertaken.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May).
Reorganization of Passive Resistance to the Education Act
of 1902.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: ENGLAND; A. D. 1909 (MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May-October).
Consumption of whiskey diminished by increase of tax.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (June).
The Imperial Press Conference.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July).
Assassination of Sir W. Curzon-Wyllie by an Indian Anarchist.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1909 (JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July-August).
Imperial Defence Conference.
Its conclusions and agreements.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY AND NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July-December).
Decision against the right of Trade Unions to pay Salaries
to Members of Parliament.
On the 23d of July, 1909, an appeal from an order of the Court
of Appeal was argued before five legal members of the House of
Lords, on the question whether the payment of members of
Parliament chosen to represent the interests of a trade union
was a lawful application of the funds of such union. The
complainant in the case had sued the Amalgamated Society of
Railway Servants, of which he had been a member since 1892, to
have it declared that one of the rules of the society, which
provides, amongst other things, for Parliamentary
representation and the enforced levy of contributions from the
plaintiff and other members of the society, towards the
payment of salaries, or maintenance allowance, to members of
Parliament pledged to observe and fulfil the conditions
imposed by the constitution of the Labour Party therein
referred to, is ultra vires and void, and that the
society may be restrained from enforcing it. And in the
alternative that it may be declared that a certain amendment
or addition made to the rules in 1906 be declared to be
illegal and void. The added rule, thus complained of, was as
follows; "All candidates shall sign and accept the conditions
of the Labour Party and be subject to their Whip."
{246}
The judgment of the Lords, rendered on the 21st of December,
sustained the order from the court below, dismissing the
appeal. Their decision rested mainly on considerations
relating to the rule quoted above, and stated briefly by one
of their bench, Lord James, as follows:
"The effect of this rule and others that exist is that a
member of the trade union is compelled to contribute to the
support of a member of Parliament, who is compelled ‘to answer
the Whip of the Labour Party.’ I construe this condition as
meaning that the member undertakes to forego his own judgment,
and to vote in Parliament in accordance with the opinions of
some person or persons acting on behalf of the Labour Party.
And such vote would have to be given in respect of all
matters, including those of a most general character—such as
confidence in a Ministry or the policy of a Budget—matters
unconnected directly at least with the interests of labour.
Therefore I am of opinion that the application of money to the
maintenance of a member whose action is so regulated is not
within the powers of a trade union. If your Lordships decide
on this branch of the case that the respondent is entitled to

judgment, it is unnecessary that any opinion should be
expressed upon the very broad constitutional question raised
for the first time in the Court of Appeal affecting the
general support of members."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (August).
The Prevention of Crimes Act brought into force.
The Borstal System.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (August).
The Trade Boards Bill, to suppress "Sweating."
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES REGULATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (September).
Imperial Congress of Chambers of Commerce.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (September).
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Stations taken over
by the Post Office.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRICAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (October).
Organization of a Navy War Council.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (January-March).
Dissolution of Parliament.
An indecisive Election.
No majority in the House of Commons for any single party.
Precarious support for the Liberal Ministry.
Uncertainties of the Situation.
As expected, Parliament was dissolved by royal proclamation
early in January, and new elections commanded, the first of
which took place on the 15th of that month and the last on the
14th of February. The result was generally disappointing,
because wholly indecisive. The new House of Commons was found
to be made up of 275 Liberals, 273 Unionists, 71 Nationalists
(Irish), 11 Independent Nationalists, and 40 Labor members.
Neither of the political parties arrayed on the main issues
involved had won a majority. The people had rendered no
recognizable verdict on the Budget, or on the tariff question,
or on the abolition of the veto power claimed by the House of
Lords.
Even with the support of the Labor members the Asquith
Ministry was in a minority. The balance was held by the Irish
members, and it was only by compromise with them that either
Liberals or Unionists could do anything. Had the Ministry been
able to choose its own course it might have preferred,
perhaps, to push the Budget question to a settlement before
attempting to determine the future of the House of Lords; but
the leader of the Nationalists, Mr. Redmond, gave prompt
notice that they would allow no such second rating of the
Lords’ veto question to go into the programme of legislation.
Probably, therefore, there were negotiations between Liberals
and Nationalists before Mr. Asquith announced the intentions
of the Government, which he did on the 28th of
February,—Parliament having been formally opened on the 15th.
Up to the 24th of March, he claimed all the time of the House
of Commons for immediate measures which must be adopted before
the close of the financial year, to provide immediately
necessary means for maintaining the national credit. Then,
"when the House reassembled after Easter, on March 29, the
Government would present their proposals on the relations
between the two Houses. They would be presented, in the first
instance, in the form of resolutions affirming the necessity
for excluding the House of Lords altogether from the domain of
finance, and inviting the House to declare that, in the sphere
of legislation, the power of the veto now possessed by the
Lords should be so limited as to secure the predominance of
the deliberate and considered will of the Commons within the
lifetime of a single Parliament. Further, it would be made
plain that these constitutional changes were without prejudice
to and contemplated in a subsequent year the substitution in
our Second Chamber, of a democratic for an hereditary basis.
When these resolutions had been agreed to, they would be
submitted to the House of Lords, so as to bring the main issue
to a trial at the earliest possible moment."
This programme of procedure appears to have been hastened
slightly; for despatches from London on the 21st of March
announced that Mr. Asquith had brought forward his
resolutions, and that their purport was as follows:
"The first resolution provides for complete control of money
bills by the House of Commons, thus unmistakably disposing of
the question that was precipitated by the Lords’ rejection of
the budget; the second precludes the Lords from rejecting any
bill that, has been passed by the Commons at three successive
sessions, provided the entire time the bill has been before
the House is not less than two years; and in the same case the
bill becomes a law without the royal assent."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (May).
Death of King Edward VII.
Accession of King George V.
The political situation in England, which had become
problematical, was probably changed with suddenness, on the
night of May 6, by the death of King Edward, after a brief
illness, consequent on chronic bronchial disorders. His son
was proclaimed as King George V. Settlement of the pending
political questions seems likely to be postponed for some
time.
----------ENGLAND: End--------
ENJUMEN.
See (in this Volume)
ANJUMAN.
ENVER BEY.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
EQUADOR.
See (in this Volume)
ECUADOR.
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
See (in this Volume)
INSURANCE, LIFE.
ERDMAN LAW.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907 (APRIL).
ERICHSEN, DR. MYLIUS:
Tragically ended survey of Greenland coast.
See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.
{247}
ERICSSON, JOHN:
Unveiling of a monument to his memory at Stockholm,
September 14, 1901.
See (in this Volume)
SWEDEN: A. D. 1901.
ERIE CANAL:
Popular vote for its enlargement to a capacity
for boats of 1000 tons.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YOKE STATE: A. D. 1903.
ERITREA:
Its habitability by whites.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA.
ESHER ARMY COMMISSION, The.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ESNEH BARRAGE, Opening of the.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
ESPERANTO.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: ESPERANTO.
ESTOURNELLES DE CONSTANT D', BARON.
See (in this Volume)
Nobel Prizes.
ESTRADA, GENERAL JUAN:
Revolutionary leader in Nicaragua.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1909.
ESTUPINIAN, DON BALTASER:
Vice-President of Second International Conference of
American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
ETHER OF SPACE, NEW CONCEPTION OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: PHYSICAL.
ETHIOPIA.
See (in this Volume)
ABYSSINIA.
EUCKEN, Rudolf.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
EUDISTES, THE CONGREGATION OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
EUGENICS.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: EUGENICS.
EULENBURG, PRINCE,
The charges against.
See (in this Volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1908.
EUPHRATES VALLEY:
Railway building.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.
EUPHRATES VALLEY:
Irrigation projects.
See in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (OCTOBER).
----------EUROPE: Start--------
EUROPE: A. D. 1850-1907.
Growth and changes in population.
The shifting of numerical weight among nations and peoples.
Some statistical statements of surprising interest were set
forth in an article published by Professor Sombart, of Berlin,
in 1907. German statisticians have a reputation for accuracy,
and we have no ground for questioning the figures submitted by
this professor, which show that, notwithstanding the great
flow of emigration from Europe within the last 60 years, its
population has increased from about 250,000,000 to 400,000,000
since the middle of the nineteenth century. The main growth,
however, has been in Russia, from which the emigration has
been slight.
The exhibit of relative increase in the several countries and
among the several races of Europe is more interesting and more
important than the total growth. This comparison gives a heavy
gain of weight to Russia since 1850, a considerable gain to
Germany, slight gains to Austria-Hungary, Great Britain and
Ireland (wholly on the British side of the United Kingdom),
Belgium, and the Netherlands, with comparative losses in all
the rest. The drop made by France in the scale of population
is distressingly great. Out of every 1,000 inhabitants of
Europe in 1850, 137 were in France; but out of the same number
of Europeans in 1905 she counted but 94. Russia, in the same
period, raised her share of the population of Europe from 215
per 1,000 to 285; Germany from 138 to 145; Austria-Hungary
from 114 to 117; Great Britain and Ireland from 104 to 105;
Belgium from sixteen to seventeen; the Netherlands from twelve
to thirteen. On the other hand, Italy dropped from 95 to 80;
Spain and Portugal from 71 to 58; Sweden, Norway, and Denmark
from 29 to 25; the Balkan States from 60 to 53; Switzerland
from nine to eight.
Carrying the comparisons of relative population back to the
beginning of the last century, Professor Sombart finds that
Germany, which gained ground in the last half of the period,
had lost more in the first half than that gain made good. In
1801 the Germans furnished 160 to each 1,000 of the population
of Europe, against their present count of 145. But Great
Britain and Ireland gave but 93 to that 1,000 in 1801 against
the 105 of the present time. The gains of Russia and the
losses of France, Italy, and Spain were alike continuous from
the first to the latest date.
As the result of these differences of advance in population,
the Slavic peoples have been raised from the lowest to the
highest weight in numbers; the Germanic have dropped just
enough in the scale to take second place; while the Latinized
folk of Southwestern Europe, or Latins as we call them, have
fallen far from the share they had in the peopling of the
continent 100 years ago. Of each 1,000 Europeans in 1801 the
Slavs numbered 268, the Latins 355, the Germanics 375. In
1850 the count was 310 for the Slav, 321 for the Latin, 369
for the Germanic. The next 55 years brought the Slav to the
front, with a great bound, and the figures in the column for
1905 are 375 Slav, 373 Germanic, 251 Latin.
These statistics hold a number of deep meanings; but they are
especially eloquent in their showing of the deadly effects of
the Napoleonic wars. For France there has been no recovery
since those horrible years when the Corsican vampire sucked at
her veins; and Spain and Italy are still sicklied from the
same cause. But Germany’s languishing ended when the long
peace of the last 36 years began. Her vitality had never been
spent, even in the Thirty Years’ War and by the belligerency
of Frederick, "called the Great," before Napoleon came to
trample upon her, as that of France had been exhausted by her
Bourbon and Corsican masters.
{248}
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
Rate of Increase of Population in other countries
compared with Germany.
"During the last few decades, the population of Germany has
been increasing with marvellous and unprecedented rapidity.
From 1870 to the present time it has grown from 40,818,000
people to more than 60,000,000 people, and has therefore
increased by 50 per cent. During the same period, our own
[British] population has increased from 31,817,000 people to
43,000,000 people, or by but 32 per cent. No nation in the
world excepting those oversea which yearly receive a huge
number of immigrants from abroad multiplies more rapidly than
does the German nation, as may be seen from the following
figures:
"Average Yearly Increase of Population
between the Last and the Previous Census.
Germany, 15,000 people per million of inhabitants.
Russia, 13,600 people per million of inhabitants.
Holland, 12,300 people per million of inhabitants.
Switzerland, 10,400 people per million of inhabitants.
Belgium, 10,100 people per million of inhabitants.
Great Britain, 9,400 people per million of inhabitants.
Austria-Hungary, 9,300 people per million of inhabitants.
Spain, 8,800 people per million of inhabitants.
Italy, 6,900 people per million of inhabitants.
France, 1,700 people per million of inhabitants.
"From the foregoing table it appears that not only the
population of Germany, but that of all the chiefly Germanic
nations, increases very much faster than that of all other
nations, Russia excepted. However, Russia cannot fairly be
compared with Germany, partly because her population
statistics are not reliable, partly because the growth of her
population is to some extent due to conquest. …
"The proud boast of the Pan-Germans that it is the destiny of
the German race to rule the world would appear to be correct,
were it not for a singular phenomenon which, so far, has
remained almost unobserved. Whilst the 60,000,000 Germans in
Germany are increasing with astonishing celerity, the
30,000,000 Germans who live in Austria-Hungary and in other
countries are so rapidly losing all German characteristics and
even the German language, that it seems possible that, forty
or fifty years hence, the number of Germans outside Germany
proper will be almost nil. …
"The 90,000,000 Germans who live in Germany and in Greater
Germany are distributed over the globe as follows:
Germany 60,000,000
Austria-Hungary 11,550,000
Switzerland 2,320,000
Russia 2,000,000
Various European countries 1,130,000
----------
Total in Europe 77,000,000
United States and Canada 11,500,000
Central and South America 600,000
Asia, Africa, Australia 400,000
Grand total 89,500,000"

O. Eltzbacher,
Germany and Greater Germany
(Contemporary Review, August, 1905).
Later figures, relative to France, on this subject, were given
by the Paris correspondent of the New York Evening Post,
writing June 12th, 1909, when he said: "From 1901 to 1905 the
birthrate was high enough to increase the population of France
18 for every 10,000 yearly. During the same period the
relative increase per 10,000 was 106 in Italy, 113 in Austria,
121 in England, 149 in Germany, and 155 in Holland. … Coming
back to single years, the birth rate of 1906 only increased
the French population 7 per 10,000; that is, among every
10,000 inhabitants there were as many births of living
children as there were deaths taken altogether, plus seven
births more. In 1907 there were five fewer births than deaths
per 10,000 inhabitants. And now here comes 1908 jumping back
to an excess of twelve births over deaths per 10,000. Such
sudden fluctuations can be seized on by no theory; 1907 had
its deficit because it had 19,892 more deaths than the
average; 1908 recovers lost ground because it had 48,266 fewer
deaths than 1907, or 28,374 fewer than the average of the
preceding period of five years. Along with this slow but sure
decrease in the absolute birth rate of France goes the happier
decrease of deaths, owing to greater well-being in general and
better popular hygiene in particular.
"Statistics have something better than this to show. The
steady increase in marriages, which I noted last year, has
gone on. For 1908 it is the heaviest since 1873; the total
number was 315,928—which is 1,172 more than in 1907 and 9441
more than in 1906. Divorces, for all France, were 10,573 in
1906 and 11,515 in 1908.
"Why do Frenchmen have few children? Because they deliberately
will not to have them. That is the answer which every
intelligent observer who passes his life among Frenchmen—as
one of themselves, not as an outsider—will give spontaneously;
and it is the answer to which all statistics and all verified
social facts lead up."
EUROPE: A. D. 1878-1909.
Thirty-one Years of Peace, broken only by
Thirty-one Days of War.
In the spring of 1897 there were thirty-one days of war
between Turkey and Greece. With that exception there have been
no hostilities on the European continent since Russia fought
the Turks in 1877-1878, a period of thirty-one years. In the
preceding thirty years there had been nearly a score of
serious insurrections and wars: the widespread revolutionary
conflicts of 1848-1849, in France, Italy, Austria, Hungary,
Germany, and Denmark; the coup d’etat of 1851 in France; the
Crimean War of 1854-1856; the war of France and Sardinia with
Austria in 1859; Garibaldi’s liberation of Sicily and Naples
in 1861, and his attempt on Rome the next year; the Greek
revolution of 1862; Polish revolts of 1861 and 1863; the
Schleswig-Holstein war of 1864; the Austro-Prussian "Seven
Weeks War" and the Austro-Italian war, in 1866; Garibaldi’s
renewed attack on the Papal government at Rome in 1867;
revolution in Spain in 1868; the Franco-German War and the
insurrection of the Communists at Paris in 1870-1871; the
revolts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875 and of Bulgaria in
1876.
There is no mistaking the hopeful significance of so striking
a contrast as this; and if we look back through two more
similar periods, each of which represents the average term
reckoned for a generation, we find the key to a better
understanding of its hopefulness. Behind the turbulent thirty
years from 1847 to 1877 are thirty years during most of which
Europe lay bleeding, panting, exhausted by thirty other years
of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars; exhausted
physically but stirred deeply in brain and heart, and
gathering strength for the efforts toward freer and better
institutions of government and more homogeneous organizations
of nationality which most of the conflicts between 1847 and
1877 represent.
{249}
It is because those conflicts resulted in far better political
conditions, and in much of satisfaction to racial affinities
and national aspirations long resisted, that the people of
Europe, in these last thirty years, have enjoyed the longest
exemption from war on their own soil that their history
records.
EUROPE: A. D. 1902-1907.
Renewal and maintenance of the Triple Alliance.
Its value to Italy.
The Triple Alliance or Dreibund of Germany, Austria-Hungary
and Italy, formed in 1882 and renewed in 1887 and 1891, was
renewed for the third time in 1902, a year before the end of
its term, by the Zanardelli Government. "The term of this
renewal was for six or 12 years; that is to say, if the treaty
were not denounced in 1907, five years after its actual
renewal, it should be considered as holding good for the full
term of 12 years. The treaty was not denounced by the Giolitti
Ministry, with Signor Tittoni Minister of Foreign Affairs, and
therefore is in force until 1914, 12 years after its third
renewal by Prinetti. Except in the case of a very marked
alteration in the friendly relations between the three
contracting Powers there can be no question of its renewal or
non-renewal at this date. That case has not arrived; the
cordial relations between Italy and her allies, in spite of
conjectured though unacknowledged differences of opinion,
remain ostensibly unaltered, and may still be considered as
correctly described in the words used in their speeches in
Vienna by the Emperor of Austria and the German Emperor, and
in the telegrams which they afterwards exchanged with the King
of Italy.
"Some Italian politicians, however, seem disposed to question
the utility of an alliance which does not relieve Italy from
the necessity of spending more money on her national defence.
What, they ask, is the use of the alliance if we have to make
these heavy sacrifices in order to increase our army and navy
and put our frontier fortifications in order? The answer is
more simple than agreeable. It is precisely the existence of
the Triple Alliance that has permitted Italy to leave her
Austrian frontier absolutely open to invasion, and to allow
both her army and navy to fall below the standard which she
had proposed to keep up. The alliance has secured her immunity
for her neglect. But she has naturally paid for that combined
neglect and immunity by accepting a subordinate role by the
side of her allies."
Rome Correspondence,
London Times, May 15, 1909.
EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (April).
The Entente Cordiale of England and France.
In his interesting work on "France and the Alliances," founded
on a course of lectures delivered at Harvard University in
1908, M. André Tardieu reviews the long antagonism between
England and France, which ran through their history, from
early in the Fourteenth Century to the last year but one of
the Nineteenth, when, in March, 1899, France, by treaty with
the British Government, gave up her strong desire to extend
her North African dominion eastward to the Nile. Then he asks:
"How came it that within five years a sincere understanding
was established between the two hereditary enemies?" He
answers the question by saying: "Neither in England nor in
France is the principle of the understanding to be sought.
Rather was it the fear of Germany which determined England—not
only her King and Government, but the whole of her people—to
draw near to France." This, without doubt, is substantially
the true explanation of the friendly agreements, forming what
is known as the Entente Cordiale between England and France,
which were signed on the 8th of April, 1904. They involved
nothing in the nature of a defensive alliance against Germany,
and they had been prepared for by a rapid growth of natural
and real good feeling between English and French folk; but it
is certain that they received their immediate prompting from
the common recognition, in England and France, that Germany
had become a rival in political and economic ambitions to both
of them, more formidable than either could be to the other.
This gave them a common reason for obliterating all their old
differences and causes of difference, and exhibiting
themselves to the world as friends.
M. Tardieu credits the English King with the initiation of
this most important rapprochement. "He it was," says the
French writer, "who both conceived and facilitated it, while
still many believed that the moment was premature. Edward VII.
has been both praised and attacked without stint. Perhaps he
deserves neither the ‘excess of honor nor yet the excess of
abuse.’ Among present sovereigns, he has one superiority, that
of having gained experience in life before reigning. … He is
not afraid of taking the initiative; and so far his initiative
has been a success. The boldest example of it was his visit to
Paris in 1903. Putting aside all objections, and being
convinced of his success, he arrived in France amidst an
atmosphere of uncertainty. When the first platoons of
cuirassiers rode down the Champs Elysées, embarrassment and
anxiety weighed on the public. The Nationalists had declared
their intention of hissing. What would be the result of a
hostile manifestation? The King, as far as he was concerned,
did not believe in the danger, and he was right. The Parisians
accorded him, not an enthusiastic, but, from the first, a
respectful, and soon a genial, reception. The road was clear.
Two months later, Mr. Loubet paid King Edward a return visit.
And, on welcoming his colleague, Mr. Delcassé, to London, Lord
Lansdowne said to him: ‘Now we are going to have some
conversation.’ As a matter of fact, there was conversation
both in Paris and in London. … On the 8th of April, 1904, the
agreement was signed, and its immediate publication produced a
deep impression in Europe."
Strictly speaking, there were three Agreements, or two
Declarations and one formal Convention, signed on the 8th of
April, 1904, constituting, together, the Anglo-French
Entente. The first, a "Declaration respecting Egypt and
Morocco," ran as follows:
"Article I.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they have no
intention of altering the political status of Egypt. The
Government of the French Republic, for their part, declare
that they will not obstruct the action of Great Britain in
that country by asking that a limit of time be fixed for the
British occupation or in any other manner, and that they give
their assent to the draft Khedivial Decree annexed to the
present Arrangement, containing the guarantees considered
necessary for the protection of the interests of the Egyptian
bondholders, on the condition that, after its promulgation, it
cannot be modified in any way without the consent of the
Powers Signatory of the Convention of London of 1885. It is
agreed that the post of Director-General of Antiquities in
Egypt shall continue, as in the past, to be entrusted to a
French savant. The French schools in Egypt shall
continue to enjoy the same liberty as in the past.
{250}
"Article II.
The Government of the French Republic declare that they have
no intention of altering the political status of Morocco. His
Britannic Majesty’s Government, for their part, recognize that
it appertains to France, more particularly as a Power whose
dominions are conterminous for a great distance with those of
Morocco, to preserve order in that country, and to provide
assistance for the purpose of all administrative, economic,
financial, and military reforms which it may require. They
declare that they will not obstruct the action taken by France
for this purpose, provided that such action shall leave intact
the rights which Great Britain, in virtue of Treaties,
Conventions, and usage, enjoys in Morocco, including the right
of coasting trade between the ports of Morocco, enjoyed by
British vessels since 1901.
"Article III.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government, for their part, will
respect the rights which France, in virtue of Treaties,
Conventions, and usage, enjoys in Egypt, including the right
of coasting trade between Egyptian ports accorded to French
vessels.
"Article IV.
The two Governments, being equally attached to the principle
of commercial liberty both in Egypt and Morocco, declare that
they will not, in those countries, countenance any inequality
either in the imposition of customs duties or other taxes, or
of railway transport charges. The trade of both nations with
Morocco and with Egypt shall enjoy the same treatment in
transit through the French and British possessions in Africa.
An Agreement between the two Governments shall settle the
conditions of such transit and shall determine the points of
entry. This mutual engagement shall be binding for a period of
thirty years. Unless this stipulation is expressly denounced
at least one year in advance, the period shall be extended for
five years at a time. Nevertheless, the Government of the
French Republic reserve to themselves in Morocco, and His
Britannic Majesty’s Government reserve to themselves in Egypt,
the right to see that the concessions for roads, railways,
ports, &c., are only granted on such conditions as will
maintain intact the authority of the State over these great
undertakings of public interest.
"Article V.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they will use
their influence in order that the French officials now in the
Egyptian service may not be placed under conditions less
advantageous than those applying to the British officials in
the same service. The Government of the French Republic, for
their part, would make no objection to the application of
analogous conditions to British officials now in the Moorish
service.
"Article VI.
In order to insure the free passage of the Suez Canal, His
Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they adhere to the
stipulations of the Treaty of the 29th October, 1888, and that
they agree to their being put in force. The free passage of
the Canal being thus guaranteed, the execution of the last
sentence of paragraph 1 as well as of paragraph 2 of Article
VIII of that Treaty will remain in abeyance.
"Article VII.
In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of
Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the
erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that
portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not
including, Melilla and the heights which command the right
bank of the River Sebou. This condition does not, however,
apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on
the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.
"Article VIII.
The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere
friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the
interests which that country derives from her geographical
position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish
coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the
French Government will come to an understanding with the
Spanish Government. The agreement which may be come to on the
subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His
Britannic Majesty’s Government.
"Article IX.
The two Governments agree to afford to one another their
diplomatic support, in order to obtain the execution of the
clauses of the present Declaration regarding Egypt and
Morocco."
The more formally designated Convention relates to questions
concerning the Newfoundland fisheries and certain boundaries
between French and English possessions in Africa. The articles
respecting Newfoundland and the fisheries are as follows:
"Article I.
France renounces the privileges established to her advantage
by Article XIII of the Treaty of Utrecht, and confirmed or
modified by subsequent provisions.
"Article II.
France retains for her citizens, on a footing of equality with
British subjects, the right of fishing in the territorial
waters on that portion of the coast of Newfoundland comprised
between Cape St. John and Cape Ray, passing by the north; this
right shall be exercised during the usual fishing season
closing for all persons on the 20th October of each year. The
French may therefore fish there for every kind of fish,
including bait and also shell fish. They may enter any port or
harbour on the said coast and may there obtain supplies or
bait and shelter on the same conditions as the inhabitants of
Newfoundland, but they will remain subject to the local
Regulations in force; they may also fish at the mouths of the
rivers, but without going beyond a straight line drawn between
the two extremities of the banks, where the river enters the
sea. They shall not make use of stake-nets or fixed engines
without permission of the local authorities. On the
above-mentioned portion of the coast, British subjects and
French citizens shall be subject alike to the laws and
Regulations now in force, or which may hereafter be passed for
the establishment of a close time in regard to any particular
kind of fish, or for the improvement of the fisheries. Notice
of any fresh laws or Regulations shall be given to the
Government of the French Republic three months before they
come into operation. The policing of the fishing on the
above-mentioned portion of the coast, and for prevention of
illicit liquor traffic and smuggling of spirits, shall form
the subject of Regulations drawn up in agreement by the two
Governments.
{251}
"Article III.
A pecuniary indemnity shall be awarded by His Britannic
Majesty’s Government to the French citizens engaged in fishing
or the preparation of fish on the ‘Treaty Shore,’ who are
obliged, either to abandon the establishments they possess
there, or to give up their occupation, in consequence of the
modification introduced by the present Convention into the
existing state of affairs. This indemnity cannot be claimed by
the parties interested unless they have been engaged in their
business prior to the closing of the fishing season of 1903.
Claims for indemnity shall be submitted to an Arbitral
Tribunal, composed of an officer of each nation, and, in the
event of disagreement, of an Umpire appointed in accordance
with the procedure laid down by Article XXXII of The Hague
Convention. The details regulating the constitution of the
Tribunal, and the conditions of the inquiries to be instituted
for the purpose of substantiating the claims, shall form the
subject of a special Agreement between the two Governments.
"Article IV.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government, recognizing that, in
addition to the indemnity referred to in the preceding
Article, some territorial compensation is due to France in
return for the surrender of her privilege in that part of the
Island of Newfoundland referred to in Article II, agree with
the Government of the French Republic to the provisions
embodied in the following Articles:"
The provisions here referred to, contained in the subsequent
articles, modify the former frontier between Senegambia and
the English colony of the Gambia, "so as to give to France
Yarbutenda and the lands and landing places belonging to that
locality"; cede to France "the group known as the Isles de
Los, and situated opposite Konakry"; and substitute a new
boundary, to the east of the Niger, for that which was fixed
between the French and British possessions by the Convention
of 1898.
The Declaration which concludes the series of Agreements has
to do with matters in Siam, Madagascar, and New Hebrides. As
to Siam, the two Governments "declare by mutual agreement that
the influence of Great Britain shall be recognized by France
in the territories situated to the west of the basin of the
River Menam, and that the influence of France shall be
recognized by Great Britain in the territories situated to the
east of the same region, all the Siamese possessions on the
east and southeast of the zone above described and the
adjacent islands coming thus henceforth under French
influence, and, on the other hand, all Siamese possessions on
the west of this zone and of the Gulf of Siam, including the
Malay Peninsula and the adjacent islands, coming under English
influence. The two Contracting Parties, disclaiming all idea
of annexing any Siamese territory, and determined to abstain
from any act which might contravene the provisions of existing
Treaties, agree that, with this reservation, and so far as either
of them is concerned, the two Governments shall each have
respectively liberty of action in their spheres of influence
as above defined."
The further agreements were, on the part of the British
Government, to withdraw a protest it had raised against the
customs tariff established in Madagascar, and, on the part of
the two Governments, "to draw up in concert an arrangement
which, without involving any modification of the political
status quo, shall put an end to the difficulties arising from
the absence of jurisdiction over the natives of the New
Hebrides."
In the British Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 1952, April, 1904)
which gave official publication to these Agreements, they are
accompanied by an explanatory despatch from the Marquess of
Lansdowne, British Foreign Secretary, to Sir E. Monson,
Ambassador at Paris, which affirms distinctly that "if any
European Power is to have a predominant influence in Morocco,
that Power is France." The language of the despatch on this
subject is as follows:
"The condition of that country [Morocco] has for a long time
been unsatisfactory and fraught with danger. The authority of
the Sultan over a large portion of his dominions is that of a
titular Chief rather than of a Ruler. Life and property are
unsafe, the natural resources of the country are undeveloped,
and trade, though increasing, is hampered by the political
situation. In these respects the contrast between Morocco and
Egypt is marked. In spite of well-meant efforts to assist the
Sultan, but little progress has been effected, and at this
moment the prospect is probably as little hopeful as it ever
has been. Without the intervention of a strong and civilized
Power there appears to be no probability of a real improvement
in the condition of the country.
"It seems not unnatural that, in these circumstances, France
should regard it as falling to her lot to assume the task of
attempting the regeneration of the country. Her Algerian
possessions adjoin those of the Sultan throughout the length
of a frontier of several hundred miles. She has been compelled
from time to time to undertake military operations of
considerable difficulty, and at much cost, in order to put an
end to the disturbances which continually arise amongst tribes
adjoining the Algerian frontier—tribes which, although
nominally the subjects of the Sultan, are, in fact, almost
entirely beyond his control. The trade of France with Morocco
is again—if that across the Algerian frontier be included—of
considerable importance, and compares not unfavourably with
our own. In these circumstances, France, although in no wise
desiring to annex the Sultan’s dominions or to subvert his
authority, seeks to extend her influence in Morocco, and is
ready to submit to sacrifices and to incur responsibilities
with the object of putting an end to the condition of anarchy
which prevails upon the borders of Algeria. His Majesty’s
Government are not prepared to assume such responsibilities,
or to make such sacrifices, and they have therefore readily
admitted that if any European Power is to have a predominant
influence in Morocco, that Power is France."
{252}
Of the reciprocal and equally important recognition by France
of the paramount influence of Great Britain in Egypt, Lord
Lansdowne wrote:
"From the point of view of Great Britain the most important
part of the Agreement which has been concluded in respect of
Egypt is the recognition by the French Government of the
predominant position of Great Britain in that country. They
fully admit that the fulfilment of the task upon which we
entered in 1883 must not be impeded by any suggestion on their
part that our interest in Egypt is of a temporary character,
and they undertake that, so far as they are concerned, we
shall not be impeded in the performance of that task. This
undertaking will enable us to pursue our work in Egypt
without, so far as France is concerned, arousing international
susceptibilities. It is true that the other Great Powers of
Europe also enjoy, in virtue of existing arrangements, a
privileged position in Egypt; but the interests of
France—historical, political, and financial—so far outweigh
those of the other Powers, with the exception of Great
Britain, that so long as we work in harmony with France, there
seems no reason to anticipate difficulty at the hands of the
other powers."
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
General Consequences in Europe of the Russo-Japanese War and
the Weakening of Russia in Prestige and Actual Power.
"Europe is apparently on the eve of such a new combination of
the Great Powers as was caused by the Franco-German War of
1870, and just as after that fateful event Berlin became the
centre of the continental political system, so Paris bids fair
to play this part in the near future. For France has never
been so powerful a factor in politics since the fall of the
Empire as to-day. Everyone recognises that her alliance with
Russia was the first step from the isolation which followed
her military reverses towards her reinstatement in the
political hierarchy, and some of the most popular and
statesmanlike politicians of the Republic hold that the
dissolution of that partnership will be the second. For the
good which it achieved, they allege, was largely accidental,
while the cost it entailed was proportionately great. …
"The chief aim of the French statesman who struck up an
alliance with the Government of Alexander III. was to
neutralise Teutonic aggressiveness, and if possible to recover
the lost provinces as well. The latter part of this programme
has turned out to be a will-o’-the-wisp, while the first item
can now be realised independently of the Russian alliance.
Moreover, France, far from being isolated to-day, counts among
her friends and natural allies not only the Latin peoples but
the smaller States of the Continent, to say nothing of Great
Britain. …
"The motives which induced Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy
to enter into partnership have lost their force; the Triple
Alliance has ceased to exist in aught but the name. Italy was
the first of the three States to break away. And her adherence
to the league was so obviously opposed to the sentiments of
her people and the real interests of the nation, that only the
strongest conceivable motive could keep her in the uncongenial
society of her former oppressor. That motive had been supplied
by Bismarck, who persuaded Crispi that clerical France was at
the beck and call of the Vatican, and only awaited a
prosperous moment to disunite Italy and restore Rome to the
Pope. But to-day Germany herself has become the most trusty
and perhaps the most helpful friend of the Holy See, while
France has struck a vigorous blow on the line of cleavage
between the political and ecclesiastical institutions which
constitute the Catholic Church. The ruling body in
Parliamentary Germany is the Ultramontane centre, and if any
State in Europe could be conceived to be capable of breaking a
lance for the temporal power of his Holiness, it would
certainly be one of the two Teutonic Empires of Central
Europe."
E. J. Dillon,
Foreign Affairs
(Contemporary Review, August, 1904).
The following is from a special correspondent of the New York
Evening Post, who wrote from St. Petersburg on the 5th
of March, 1909:
"The international position of Russia has weakened greatly
during the last five years. Before the Japanese war and the
revolution her strength was enormous, and a Japanese officer
who visited St. Petersburg in 1903 wrote in a Japanese paper
that, judging by the attention which was paid to the Czar by
every court in Europe and by the respect, almost awe even,
with which he was regarded, that monarch might almost be
styled the king of kings. The war and the revolution made
short work, however, of this respect and awe. The Emperor
William first took advantage of Russia’s weakness by springing
the Morocco surprise on Europe; then Baron von Aerenthal
annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which he would never, of
course, have dared to do six years ago; while recently in the
Duma Mr. Iswolsky frankly confessed that Russia can do
absolutely nothing; that the war and the revolution have bled
her white, and that no assistance or hope of assistance can be
given to the Serbs and the Montenegrins."
EUROPE: A. D. 1905.
Joint action of Powers in forcing Financial Reforms in
Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
Sudden hostility of Germany to the Anglo-French Agreement
concerning Morocco.
The Kaiser’s speech at Tangier.
Threatening pressure on France.
Demand for International Conference.
Results at Algeciras.
What use the French Government wished to make of the free
exercise of influence in Morocco which Great Britain consented
to, in the agreements of April 8, 1904, is stated by M. Tardieu
in his "France and the Alliances," with more than probable
truth, as follows:
"There was no design of conquest, or of protectorate, or of
monopoly. Conquest would have cost too dear. A protectorate
would have served no purpose in face of the exclusiveness of
the tribes. Monopolization would have been contrary to
international treaties. To create police forces with Moroccan
natives and Algerian instructors in all the principal towns;
to restore finances by means of a more honest collection of
taxes, a genuine checking of expenses, and the repression of
smuggling; to increase the carrying trade by public works
wisely planned and the construction of ports, bridges and
roads—all this by contract law; to multiply hospitals,
schools, educational and charitable institutions,—such was
the tenor of the programme. … As Mr. Delcassé wrote: ‘Far from
diminishing the Sultan’s authority, we were peculiarly anxious
to enhance his prestige.’"
{253}
For almost a year after the signing of the Anglo-French
agreements of April, 1904, no objection was raised in Europe
to the undertaking by France of such regenerative work in
Morocco as they contemplated. Italy had assented to it before
England did. Spain did the same a few months later. These were
the Powers most concerned. The German Ambassador to France had
been informed of the tenor of the agreement with England a
fortnight before it was signed, and no criticism came from his
Government. After the text of it had been published,
Chancellor von Bülow said in the Reichstag: "We know of
nothing that should lead us to think that this agreement is
directed against any Power whatsoever. … From the point of
view of German interests, we have no objection to make against
it." During the eleven months that followed this utterance
nothing appears to have been done by France in Morocco that
changed the situation; but something changed the official
attitude of Germany towards what it had found acceptable
before, and changed it very suddenly. On the 31st of March,
1905, the German Emperor, on a yachting cruise to the
Mediterranean, disembarked at Tangier, and found occasion to
address these remarks to a representative of the Sultan:
"To-day, I pay my visit to the Sultan in his character of
independent sovereign. I hope that, under the Sultan’s
sovereignty, a free Morocco will remain open to the pacific
competition of all nations without monopoly and without
annexation, on a footing of absolute equality. My visit to
Tangier is intended to make known the fact that I am resolved
to do all that is in my power properly to safeguard the
interests of Germany, since I consider the Sultan as being an
absolutely free sovereign. It is with him that I mean to come
to an understanding respecting the best way of safeguarding
such interests. As regards the reforms which the Sultan is
intending to make, it seems to me that any action in this
direction should be taken with great precaution, respect being
had for the religious sentiments of the population in order
that there may be no disturbance of public tranquillity."
All Europe read an emphasized threat in these words, and felt
instantly that they meant hostile intentions towards France.
That they came so quickly after the crushing defeat of Russia
at Mukden; that Russia, ally of France in European politics,
would need no longer to be counted, for some indefinite future
time, as a military Power; that the Dual Alliance, which had
been the prop of France in the recovery of her standing among
the Powers, was thus suddenly a broken reed, and that
circumstances were propitious, therefore, for humiliating her
again,—here were facts for a bit of reasoning which suggested
itself quickly to a multitude of minds.
Twelve days after the speech of William II. at Tangier
Chancellor Bülow addressed a circular to the Ambassadors of
Germany at various capitals, directing them to demand an
International Conference for the settlement of matters
concerning Morocco. A little later the Moorish Sultan, Abd el
Aziz, endorsed the demand, in the following missive, addressed
to the several legations of foreign governments at Tangier:
"We have been ordered by our master the Sultan (God strengthen
him) to request all the great powers to hold a conference at
Tangier, composed by its honorable representatives and those
appointed by the Maghzen [the royal council or Cabinet] to
discuss the manner for suitable reforms which His Shcreefian
Majesty has determined to introduce into his Empire, and the
expenses to carry out the same. We therefore beg to inform
your excellency of this, so that you may notify your
government and request them to permit your excellency to
attend said conference for the above-mentioned purpose and let
us know of its answer, and remain in peace and with joy.
Written at the Holy Court at Fez on the 25th day of Rabe 1st,
1905; corresponding to May 29, 1905.
MOHAMMED BEN ARBY TORRES."
Meantime, Germany was bringing pressure at Paris to force the
resignation or removal of M. Delcassé, the Foreign Minister,
whose policy was now said to be "A threat to Germany," and the
French Government, unprepared for war, submitted to
concessions which involved that result. It entered on
preliminary pourparlers concerning the demand for an
international conference, and allowed Minister Delcassé to
resign.
A fair-minded German’s view of the proceedings of the German
Government in this matter was expressed by Mr. W. C. Dreher in
his next annual review of "The Year in Germany" for The
Atlantic Monthly. Frankly acknowledging that the Morocco
controversy had "left with most other nations a distinctly
disagreeable impression of the disturbing tendencies of German
policy," and that the Kaiser’s famous speech at Tangier had
"astonished the German people not less than other nations," he
remarks: "For the Germans had learned to acquiesce in the
Anglo-French settlement, under which France was to have a free
hand for its scheme of pénétration pacifique in
Morocco. The utterances of the Imperial Chancellor in the
Reichstag clearly indicated that the Government accepted with
good grace the general terms of that settlement. The people,
too, had been schooled by the inspired press in the theory
that Germany’s commercial interests in Morocco were so
insignificant as not to warrant the inauguration of a large
and energetic action to assert them; and this view had been
generally accepted by them, barring the noisy little faction
of Pan Germans.
"The chief fault of Germany’s Morocco policy was, accordingly,
that it was sprung upon the German people themselves without
warning, without any preparation of their minds for it; hence
they imperfectly comprehended it and never had any great
interest in it. They did not feel that it was a matter
intimately affecting the nation’s interests; and while the
German Ambassador at Paris was asserting Germany’s solidarity
with Morocco, the press at home was diligently occupied in
convincing the outside world that Germany would never go to
war on account of that remote and insignificant state.
"Despite the abruptness and lack of skill in launching its new
policy, however, the government’s position was logical and,
within certain limits, reasonable. France and England had
assumed to decide the fate of Morocco between themselves,
whereas the Madrid Treaty of 1880, to which Germany was
signatory, had explicitly given an international character to
the Moroccan question. This was clearly an affront to
Germany’s dignity and an attempt to isolate her, which ought
to have been objected to at once."
W. C. Dreher,
The Year in Germany
(Atlantic Monthly, November, 1906).
{254}

On the 28th of September M. Rouvier, the French Premier, and
Prince de Radolin, the German Ambassador at Paris, arrived at
an agreement concerning the matters to be settled at the
demanded Conference, and it was announced to other governments
in the following Memorandum;
The two Governments have agreed to submit to the Sultan the
draft of the following programme elaborated in conformity to
principles adopted by exchange of notes on July 8:
"First.
1. Organization, by way of international agreement, of the
police outside the border region.
"2. Regulations organizing the surveillance and suppression of
the smuggling of arms. In the border region the enforcement of
these regulations will exclusively concern France and Morocco.
"Second.
Financial reform.
"Financial support given to the Maghzen through the
establishment of a state bank with the privilege of issue,
taking charge of treasury operations and acting as a medium
for the coinage of money, the profits of which would belong to
the Maghzen.
"The said state bank would undertake to bring about a sounder
monetary condition.
"The credits opened to the Maghzen would be applied to the
equipment and salaries of the public forces and to urgent
public works, especially the improvement of the harbors and
their facilities.
"Third.
Study of better proceeds from imposts and of new sources of
revenue.
"Fourth.
Undertaking on the part of the Maghzen that no public service
will be disposed of for the benefit of private interests.
"Principle of letting contracts for public works to the lowest
bidder, without preference for any nationality."
In due time the further details were arranged, and
representatives of thirteen governments, namely, of
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Italy, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia,
Sweden, and the United States, were assembled in Conference on
the 15th of January, 1906, not at Tangier, but at the Spanish
city of Algeciras, on the coast of the Straits of Gibraltar.
The United States were represented by the American Ambassador
to the French Republic, Henry White, and by the American
Minister to Morocco, S. R. Gummeré. The instructions addressed
to them from Washington by the Secretary of State, Mr. Root,
were partly in these words:
"The United States is a participant in the discussions of the
conference solely by reason of being a treaty power, having
conventional engagements with Morocco dating back to 1836, by
which this country not only enjoys special privileges, but is
entitled to the most-favored-nation treatment for the time
being. This government also shares in the right of protection
of certain native Moors as defined in the multipartite
convention of July 3, 1880. Our interest and right comprise
and are limited to an equal share in whatever privileges of
residence, trade, and protection are enjoyed by, or may be
hereafter conceded by, the Shereefian Government to aliens and
their local agencies, and it follows that we have a like
concern in the enlargement of those privileges in all
appropriate ways. With the special political problems of
influence and association affecting the relations of the
Moroccan Empire, as a Mediterranean state, to the powers
having interests in that great sea and whose concern lies
naturally in the conservation and extension of its commerce
for the common benefit of all, the United States have little
to do beyond expression of its wish that equality and
stability be secured. …
"It is expected that your attitude in the proceedings of the
conference will display the impartial benevolence which the
United States feels toward Morocco and the cordial and
unbiased friendship we have for all the treaty powers. Fair
play is what the United States asks—for Morocco and for all
the interested nations—and it confidently expects that
outcome. The complete dissociation of the United States from
all motives or influences which might tend to thwart a perfect
agreement of the powers should, in case of need, lend weight
to your impartial counsels in endeavoring to compose any
dissidence of aims which may possibly develop in the course of
the conference."
Algeciras, the chosen seat of the Conference, had been three
times a landing place of the Moors in their invasions of
Spain. "The modern town," says one who wrote an account of the
Conference, "dating only from 1760, has but one attraction, a
magnificent English hotel, built by the owners of the
picturesque railway which connects it with the rest of Europe,
and of the corresponding steamer service across the bay to
Gibraltar, placing it in touch with all the world. But this
attraction sufficed, and the Reina Cristina Hotel was engaged
for the delegates, while the town-hall was cleared and
refitted for their deliberations. …
"The meetings were held at irregular intervals, about three
times a week, being summoned whenever the President was
advised that sufficient instructions had been received, or
that the drafting committee had some document to present for
consideration. Formal sessions were held from ten to twelve in
the morning, the Conference meeting in committee from three to
five in the afternoon, the drafting and translating committees
assembling when and where convenient to their members."
Budgett Meakin,
The Algeciras Conference
(Fortnightly Review, May, 1906).
The General Act of the Conference, finished and signed on the
7th of April, 1906, is in 123 Articles, divided into 6
Chapters, as follows:
I. A Declaration relative to the Organization of the Police;
II. Regulations concerning the detection and suppression of
the Illicit Trade in Arms;
III. An Act of Concession for a Moorish State Bank;
IV. A Declaration concerning an Improved Yield of the Taxes,
and the creation of New Sources of Revenue;
V. Regulations respecting the Customs of the Empire and the
suppression of Fraud and Smuggling;
VI. A Declaration relative to the Public Services and Public
Works.
The first chapter provides for the organization of a police
force, not less than 2000 nor more than 2500 in number,
recruited from among Moorish Mussulmans and commanded by
Kaids, but having Spanish and French officers and
non-commissioned officers for instructors, nominated to the
Sultan by their respective Governments, and their services
given for five years.
{255}
This police force, moreover, is subject to general inspection
by a superior officer of the Swiss army. The regulations of
the second chapter are minute and precise for their stated
purpose. The Morocco State Bank, provided for in the third, is
made subject to the law of France, and is to "discharge the
duties of disbursing Treasurer of the Empire" and "financial
agent of the Government." The Directors of the Bank are
chosen, of course, by the shareholders; but one article
stipulates that "the Shereefian Government shall exercise its
high control over the Bank through a Moorish High
Commissioner, whom it shall appoint after previous agreement
with the board of directors," while another requires that
"each of the following institutions, viz., the German Imperial
Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Spain and the Bank of
France, shall, with the approval of its Government, appoint a
Censor to the State Bank of Morocco." The prescriptions in the
fourth and fifth chapters of the act are not of general
significance or interest. In the sixth, relating to "public
services and public works," it is set forth that, "should the
Shereefian Government consider it necessary to have recourse
to foreign capital or to foreign industries for the working of
public services or for the execution of public works, roads,
railways, ports, telegraphs, or other, the Signatory Powers
reserve to themselves the right to see that the control of the
State over such large undertakings of public interest remain
intact." On the signing of the Act Mr. Henry White, the chief
delegate from the United States to the Conference, made the
following Declaration on behalf of his Government:
"The Government of the United States of America, having no
political interests in Morocco, and having taken part in the
present Conference with no other desires or intentions than to
assist in assuring to all the nations in Morocco the most
complete equality in matters of commerce, treatment, and
privileges, and in facilitating the introduction into that
Empire of reforms which should bring about a general state of
well-being founded on the perfect cordiality of her foreign
relations, and on a stable internal administration, declares:
that in subscribing to the Regulations and Declarations of the
Conference by the act of signing the General Act, subject to
ratification according to constitutional procedure, and the
Additional Protocol, and in consenting to their application to
American citizens and interests in Morocco, it assumes no
obligation or responsibility as to the measures which may be
necessary for the enforcement of the said Regulations and
Declarations."
EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).
Convention between Great Britain and Russia, containing
arrangements on the subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet.
Parallel with the Agreements—the "Entente Cordiale"—of
1904 between England and France, in its purpose and in its
importance to Europe, was the Convention between England and
Russia in 1907, which harmonized the interests and the policy
of the two nations in matters relating to Persia, Afghanistan,
and Tibet. In each case the dictating motive looked not so
much to a settlement of the particular questions involved, as
to a general extinguishment of possible causes of contention
which might at some time disturb the peaceful or friendly
relations of the peoples concerned. Taken together, the two
formally expressed understandings, Anglo-French and
Anglo-Russian, added to the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1895
(see, in Volume VI. of this work, FRANCE: A. D. 1895)
constituted, not a new Triple Alliance, set over against that
of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, but an amicable
conjunction which bore suggestions of alliance, and which
introduced a counterweight in European politics that makes
undoubtedly for peace.
The Anglo-Russian Convention, signed August 31, 1907,
contained three distinct "Arrangements," under a common
preamble, as follows:
"His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas,
Emperor of India, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the
Russias, animated by the sincere desire to settle by mutual
agreement different questions concerning the interests of
their States on the Continent of Asia, have determined to
conclude Agreements destined to prevent all cause of
misunderstanding between Great Britain and Russia in regard to
the questions referred to, and have nominated for this purpose
their respective Plenipotentiaries. … Who, having communicated
to each other their full powers, found in good and due form, have
agreed on the following:
Arrangement concerning Persia.
"The Governments of Great Britain and Russia having mutually
engaged to respect the integrity and independence of Persia,
and sincerely desiring the preservation of order throughout
that country and its peaceful development, as well as the
permanent establishment of equal advantages for the trade and
industry of all other nations;
"Considering that each of them has, for geographical and
economic reasons, a special interest in the maintenance of
peace and order in certain provinces of Persia adjoining, or
in the neighbourhood of, the Russian frontier on the one hand,
and the frontiers of Afghanistan and Baluchistan on the other
hand; and being desirous of avoiding all cause of conflict
between their respective interests in the above-mentioned
Provinces of Persia;
"Have agreed on the following terms:
"I. Great Britain engages not to seek for herself, and not to
support in favour of British subjects, or in favour of the
subjects of third Powers, any Concessions of a political or
commercial nature—such as Concessions for railways, banks,
telegraphs, roads, transport, insurance, &c.—beyond a line
starting from Kasr-i-Shirin, passing through Isfahan, Yezd,
Kakhk and ending at a point on the Persian frontier at the
intersection of the Russian and Afghan frontiers, and not to
oppose, directly or indirectly, demands for similar
Concessions in this region which are supported by the Russian
Government. It is understood that the above-mentioned places
are included in the region in which Great Britain engages not
to seek the Concessions referred to.
"II. Russia, on her part, engages not to seek for herself, and
not to support in favour of Russian subjects, or in favour of
the subjects of third Powers, any Concessions of a political
or commercial nature—such as Concessions for railways, banks,
telegraphs, roads, transport, insurance, &c.—beyond a line
going from the Afghan frontier by way of Gazik, Birjand,
Kerman, and ending at Bunder Abbas, and not to oppose,
directly or indirectly, demands for similar Concessions in
this region which are supported by the British Government. It
is understood that the above-mentioned places are included in
the region in which Russia engages not to seek the Concessions
referred to.
{256}
"III. Russia, on her part, engages not to oppose, without
previous arrangement with Great Britain, the grant of any
Concessions whatever to British subjects in the regions of
Persia situated between the lines mentioned in Articles I and
II. Great Britain undertakes a similar engagement as regards
the grant of Concessions to Russian subjects in the same
regions of Persia. All Concessions existing at present in the
regions indicated in Articles I and II are maintained.
"IV. It is understood that the revenues of all the Persian
customs, with the exception of those of Farsistan and of the
Persian Gulf, revenues guaranteeing the amortization and the
interest of the loans concluded by the Government of the Shah
with the ‘Banque d’Escompte et des Prêts de Perse ’ up to the
date of the signature of the present Arrangement, shall be
devoted to the same purpose as in the past. It is equally
understood that the revenues of the Persian customs of
Farsistan and of the Persian Gulf, as well as those of the
fisheries on the Persian shore of the Caspian Sea and those of
the Posts and Telegraphs, shall be devoted, as in the past, to
the service of the loans concluded by the Government of the
Shah with the Imperial Bank of Persia up to the date of the
signature of the present Arrangement.
"V. In the event of irregularities occurring in the
amortization or the payment of the interest of the Persian
loans concluded with the ‘Banque d’Escompte et des Prêts de
Perse’ and with the Imperial Bank of Persia up to the date of
the signature of the present Arrangement, and in the event of
the necessity arising for Russia to establish control over the
sources of revenue guaranteeing the regular service of the
loans concluded with the first-named bank, and situated in the
region mentioned in Article II of the present Arrangement, or
for Great Britain to establish control over the sources of
revenue guaranteeing the regular service of the loans
concluded with the second-named bank, and situated in the
region mentioned in Article I of the present Arrangement, the
British and Russian Governments undertake to enter beforehand
into a friendly exchange of ideas with a view to determine, in
agreement with each other, the measures of control in question
and to avoid all interference which would not be in conformity
with the principles governing the present Arrangement.
Convention concerning Afghanistan.
"The High Contracting Parties, in order to ensure perfect
security on their respective frontiers in Central Asia and to
maintain in these regions a solid and lasting peace, have
concluded the following Convention:
"Article I.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they have no
intention of changing the political status of Afghanistan. His
Britannic Majesty’s Government further engage to exercise
their influence in Afghanistan only in a pacific sense, and
they will not themselves take, nor encourage Afghanistan to
take, any measures threatening Russia. The Russian Government,
on their part, declare that they recognize Afghanistan as
outside the sphere of Russian influence, and they engage that
all their political relations with Afghanistan shall be
conducted through the intermediary of His Britannic Majesty’s
Government; they further engage not to send any Agents into
Afghanistan.
"Article II.
The Government of His Britannic Majesty having declared in the
Treaty signed at Kabul on the 21st March, 1905, that they
recognize the Agreement and the engagements concluded with the
late Ameer Abdur Rahman, and that they have no intention of
interfering in the internal government of Afghan territory,
Great Britain engages neither to annex nor to occupy in
contravention of that Treaty any portion of Afghanistan or to
interfere in the internal administration of the country,
provided that the Ameer fulfils the engagements already
contracted by him towards His Britannic Majesty’s Government
under the above-mentioned Treaty.
"Article III.
The Russian and Afghan authorities, specially designated for
the purpose on the frontier or in the frontier provinces, may
establish direct relations with each other for the settlement
of local questions of a non-political character.
"Article IV.
His Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Russian Government
affirm their adherence to the principle of equality of
commercial opportunity in Afghanistan, and they agree that any
facilities which may have been, or shall be hereafter obtained
for British and British-Indian trade and traders, shall be
equally enjoyed by Russian trade and traders. Should the
progress of trade establish the necessity for Commercial
Agents, the two Governments will agree as to what measures
shall be taken, due regard, of course, being had to the
Ameer’s sovereign rights.
"Article V.
The present Arrangements will only come into force when His
Britannic Majesty’s Government shall have notified to the
Russian Government the consent of the Ameer to the terms
stipulated above.
Arrangement concerning Thibet.
"The Governments of Great Britain and Russia recognizing the
suzerain rights of China in Thibet, and considering the fact
that Great Britain, by reason of her geographical position,
has a special interest in the maintenance of the status quo in
the external relations of Thibet, have made the following
Arrangement:—
"Article I.
The two High Contracting Parties engage to respect the
territorial integrity of Thibet and to abstain from all
interference in its internal administration.
"Article II.
In conformity with the admitted principle of the suzerainty of
China over Thibet, Great Britain and Russia engage not to
enter into negotiations with Thibet except through the
intermediary of the Chinese Government. This engagement does
not exclude the direct relations between British Commercial
Agents and the Thibetan authorities provided for in Article V
of the Convention between Great Britain and Thibet of the 7th
September, 1904, and confirmed by the Convention between Great
Britain and China of the 27th April, 1906; nor does it modify
the engagements entered into by Great Britain and China in
Article I of the said Convention of 1906.
{257}
"It is clearly understood that Buddhists, subjects of Great
Britain or of Russia, may enter into direct relations on
strictly religious matters with the Dalai Lama and the other
representatives of Buddhism in Thibet; the Governments of
Great Britain and Russia engage, as far as they are concerned,
not to allow those relations to infringe the stipulations of
the present Arrangement.
"Article III.
The British and Russian Governments respectively engage not to
send Representatives to Lhassa.
"Article IV.
The two High Contracting Parties engage neither to seek nor to
obtain, whether for themselves or their subjects, any
Concessions for railways, roads, telegraphs, and mines, or
other rights in Thibet.
"Article V.
The two Governments agree that no part of the revenues of
Thibet, whether in kind or in cash, shall be pledged or
assigned to Great Britain or Russia or to any of their
subjects.
Annex to the Arrangement between Great Britain and Russia
concerning Thibet.
"Great Britain reaffirms the Declaration, signed by his
Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General of India and
appended to the ratification of the Convention of the 7th
September, 1904, to the effect that the occupation of the
Chumbi Valley by British forces shall cease after the payment
of three annual instalments of the indemnity of 25,000,000
rupees, provided that the trade marts mentioned in Article II
of that Convention have been effectively opened for three
years, and that in the meantime the Thibetan authorities have
faithfully complied in all respects with the terms of the said
Convention of 1904. It is clearly understood that if the
occupation of the Chumbi Valley by the British forces has, for
any reason, not been terminated at the time anticipated in the
above Declaration, the British and Russian Governments will
enter upon a friendly exchange of views on this subject."
As an Inclosure with the Convention, Notes were exchanged by
the Plenipotentiaries, of which that from Mr. Nicolson was in
the following words, M. Iswolsky replying to the same effect.
"ST. PETERSBURG, AUGUST 18 (31), 1907.
"M. LE MINISTRE,
"With reference to the Arrangement regarding Thibet, signed
to-day, I have the honour to make the following Declaration to
your Excellency:
"'His Britannic Majesty’s Government think it desirable, so
far as they are concerned, not to allow, unless by a previous
agreement with the Russian Government, for a period of three
years from the date of the present communication, the entry
into Thibet of any scientific mission whatever, on condition
that a like assurance is given on the part of the Imperial
Russian Government.
"‘His Britannic Majesty’s Government propose, moreover, to
approach the Chinese Government with a view to induce them to
accept a similar obligation for a corresponding period; the
Russian Government will as a matter of course take similar
action.
"‘At the expiration of the term of three years above mentioned
His Britannic Majesty’s Government will, if necessary, consult
with the Russian government as to the desirability of any
ulterior measures with regard to scientific expeditions to
Thibet.’ I avail, &c.
(Signed) A. NICOLSON."
In authorizing Sir A. Nicolson to sign the preceding
Convention, Sir Edward Grey, the British Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, wrote, on the 29th of August, as follows:
"I have to-day authorized your Excellency by telegraph to sign
a Convention with the Russian Government containing
Arrangements on the subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and
Thibet.
"The Arrangement respecting Persia is limited to the regions
of that country touching the respective frontiers of Great
Britain and Russia in Asia, and the Persian Gulf is not part
of those regions, and is only partly in Persian territory. It
has not therefore been considered appropriate to introduce
into the Convention a positive declaration respecting special
interests possessed by Great Britain in the Gulf, the result
of British action in those waters for more than a hundred
years.
"His Majesty’s Government have reason to believe that this
question will not give rise to difficulties between the two
Governments, should developments arise which make further
discussion affecting British interests in the Gulf necessary.
For the Russian Government have in the course of the
negotiations leading up to the conclusion of this Arrangement
explicitly stated that they do not deny the special interests
of Great Britain in the Persian Gulf—a statement of which His
Majesty’s Government have formally taken note.
"In order to make it quite clear that the present Arrangement
is not intended to affect the position in the Gulf, and does
not imply any change of policy respecting it on the part of
Great Britain, His Majesty’s Government think it desirable to
draw attention to previous declarations of British policy, and
to reaffirm generally previous statements as to British
interests in the Persian Gulf and the importance of
maintaining them.
"His Majesty’s Government will continue to direct all their
efforts to the preservation of the status quo in the
Gulf and the maintenance of British trade; in doing so, they
have no desire to exclude the legitimate trade of any other
Power."
Parliamentary Papers by Command.
Russia. Number 1. 1907 (Cd. 3750).
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
Treaties respecting the Independence and Territorial Integrity
of Norway, and concerning the Maintenance of the Status Quo
in the territories bordering upon the North Sea.
Two Treaties of great importance to the security of peace in
Europe, having for object a joint protection by several Powers
of existing conditions on the North Sea and the Baltic exit to
it, were concluded and signed on the 2d of November, 1907, and
the 23d of April, 1908, respectively. The parties to the first
of these Treaties were Great Britain, France, Germany, Norway,
and Russia, and its purpose was "to secure to Norway, within
her present frontiers and with her neutral zone, her
independence and territorial integrity, as also the benefits
of peace." It was signed at Christiania, where ratifications
were deposited on the 6th of February following: The following
is the text of the Treaty;
{258}
"Article I.
The Norwegian Government undertake not to cede any portion of
the territory of Norway to any Power to hold on a title
founded either on occupation, or on any other ground
whatsoever.
"Article II.
The German, French, British, and Russian Governments recognize
and undertake to respect the integrity of Norway. If the
integrity of Norway is threatened or impaired by any Power
whatsoever, the German, French, British, and Russian
Governments undertake, on the receipt of a previous
communication to this effect from the Norwegian Government, to
afford to that Government their support, by such means as may
be deemed the most appropriate, with a view to safeguarding
the integrity of Norway.
"Article III.
The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years from
the day of the exchange of ratifications. If the Treaty is not
denounced by any of the parties at least two years before the
expiration of the said period, it will remain in force, in the
same manner as before, for a further period of ten years and
so on accordingly.
"In the event of the Treaty being denounced by one of the
Powers who have participated with Norway in the conclusion of
the present Treaty, such denunciation shall have effect only
as far as that Power is concerned.
"Article IV.
The present Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications
shall be exchanged at Christiania as soon as possible."
The second of the two Treaties was in two documents, styled
"Declaration and Memorandum between the United Kingdom,
Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden,
concerning the maintenance of the Status Quo in the
territories bordering upon the North Sea." They were signed at
Berlin, where ratifications were deposited on the 2d of July,
1908, and were in the following terms:
"Declaration.
The British, Danish, French, German, Netherland, and Swedish
Governments,
"Animated by the desire to strengthen the ties of neighbourly
friendship existing between their respective countries, and to
contribute thereby to the preservation of universal peace, and
recognizing that their policy with respect to the regions
bordering on the North Sea is directed to the maintenance of
the existing territorial status quo,
"Declare that they are firmly resolved to preserve intact, and
mutually to respect, the sovereign rights which their
countries at present enjoy over their respective territories
in those regions.
"Should any events occur which, in the opinion of any of the
above-mentioned Governments, threaten the existing territorial
status quo in the regions bordering upon the North Sea,
the Powers Signatory of the present Declaration will
communicate with each other in order to concert, by an
agreement to be arrived at between them, such measures as they
may consider it useful to take in the interest of the
maintenance of the status quo as regards their
possessions.
"The present Declaration shall be ratified with the least
possible delay. The ratifications shall be deposited at Berlin
as soon as may be, and, at the latest, on the 31st December,
1908. The deposit of each ratification shall be recorded in a
Protocol, of which a certified copy shall be forwarded through
the diplomatic channel to the Signatory Powers.
"Memorandum.
At the moment of signing the Declaration of this day’s date,
the Under signed, by order of their respective Governments,
consider it necessary to state—
"1. That the principle of the maintenance of the status
quo, as laid down by the said Declaration, applies solely
to the territorial integrity of all the existing possessions
of the High Contracting Parties in the regions bordering upon
the North Sea, and that consequently the Declaration can in no
case be invoked where the free exercise of the sovereign
rights of the High Contracting Parties over their
above-mentioned respective possessions is in question;
"2. That, for the purposes of the said Declaration, the North
Sea shall be considered to extend eastwards as far as its
junction with the waters of the Baltic."
British Parliamentary Papers by Command,
Treaty Series No. 35, 1907, and 23, 1908
(Cd. 3754 and 4248).
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1909.
The Situation in Crete as controlled by the Four Protecting
Powers.
See (in this Volume)
CRETE: A. D. 1907-1909.
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (October-March).
Declaration of Bulgarian Independence.
Austrian Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Excitement of Servia.
The menace to European peace.
The question of a Conference.
Attitude of Germany.
Was Russia coerced to assent?
Violation of the Public Law of Europe.
On the 5th of October, 1908, the independence of Bulgaria as a
Kingdom was formally proclaimed, the suzerainty of the Sultan
of Turkey renounced, and Prince Ferdinand invested with the
title of Tzar, or King. This proceeding was consequent on the
revolution in Turkey, which had resurrected the suspended
Constitution of 1876, broken the despotism of the Sultanate
and subjected it to a Parliamentary system of government.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908, JULY-DECEMBER.
Never having accepted the arrangements of 1878, made by the
Congress of Berlin, which gave them self-government but kept
them tributary and nominally subject to the over lordship of
the Sultan, the Bulgarians had but waited for the opportunity
which now seemed to invite this act.
See, in Volume V. of this work,
TURKS: A. D. 1878;
and in Volume I.,
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, and 1878-1886)
An immediate provocation to their declaration of independence
was supplied by a thoughtless offence to them given by the new
Ministry at Constantinople. To celebrate the triumph of the
revolution a state dinner was given, the Sultan presiding, and
all the diplomats at the Turkish capital were invited to it
excepting the representative of Bulgaria. When he asked for an
explanation of this exception he was told that he could not be
recognized as an ambassador or envoy, but only as the agent of
a subject province. This was enough to set Bulgaria aflame.
Her affronted Minister at Constantinople was withdrawn and
diplomatic intercourse with the Turkish Government dropped.
The breach was accentuated further by the recent occurrence of
a strike on the railway, owned by the Turkish Government,
which traverses both Turkish and Bulgarian territory. The
Bulgarians had taken possession of and were operating the
section within their own domain, and when the strike was
called off the Government announced its intention to retain
that portion of the line, with due compensation to the company
which leased it. This proceeding intensified and doubled the
ferments produced by the proclamation of independence.
Statesmen were disturbed by the violation of the Treaty of
Berlin and capitalists by the danger which menaced their
Turkish railway securities.
{259}
But this tells of only half the threatening incidents of the
time. Simultaneously with the Bulgarian defiance of the Treaty
of Berlin and its signatory sponsors, the Government of
Austria-Hungary broke away from its obligations, by a formal
announcement that the simple occupation and administration of
Bosnia, and Herzegovina, which that treaty had permitted the
Dual Empire to undertake, was now to be complete annexation,
by no other authority than the Imperial will to have it so.
Many interests and ambitions, many jealousies and distrusts
among the Powers, were disturbed and excited by this sudden
disordering of the political geography of Southeastern Europe.
Pan-Slavic feelings and hopes were profoundly antagonistic to
the Austrian absorption of more Slavic populations and lands.
Servia was alarmed to desperation by the aggrandizement of her
dangerous great neighbor, and Russia was more than sympathetic
with her alarm. What Turkey could or would do in vindication
of her treaty rights over Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina,
was a question of little gravity compared with that which
asked what Servia might attempt in resistance to the Austrian
scheme, and what Russia would venture if an Austro-Servian war
should break out. The situation very soon became one in which
any act of hostility on any side could hardly fail to
precipitate a great tempest of war; and thus the peace of
Europe was held in a trembling balance for months. The state
of affairs was described clearly and with ample knowledge at
the time by Mr. Archibald R. Colquhoun, in a paper which he
read in London, at a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts.
"The more hot-headed Servians," he said, "undoubtedly felt
that their whole future was imperilled, and that they might as
well risk all on a desperate hazard, in the belief that
intervention would come to their assistance should their
independence be threatened. The close racial ties between the
Bosnians, Servians, and Montenegrins made it impossible to say
how far an armed movement might spread if it once broke out.
While Turkey and Bulgaria might come to terms, and while
Austria might effect an amicable arrangement with Turkey, it
was difficult to see how the question of the Southern Slavs
was to be finally adjusted unless Austria could placate them
in sections, and so perhaps divide them. Concessions of a
comparatively unimportant nature might induce Montenegro to
keep quiet, and a liberal policy, with a promise of autonomy
in the near future, would discount a good deal of the
agitation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The more far-sighted
Bosnians appreciated the fact that their shortest cut to
comparative freedom lay through that local autonomy which they
could legitimately demand from Austria. …
"The spectacle of these Southern Slave countries, whose
peoples exhibited so many splendid qualities, but yet did not
have that instinct for government which characterized some far
less gifted races, was rather a melancholy one. In the tangle
of mountains, races, and religions which made up the Balkans
the people needed peace above every other thing—a breathing
space in which to develop themselves and their resources, and
to get a truer perspective on their position in Europe. To the
Great Powers who controlled the destinies of these small ones
peace was no less essential, but it was not quite clear that
Austria-Hungary, with the great military power of Germany
behind her, realized this or was prepared to ‘seek peace and
ensue it.’ It was this uncertainty which made many await with
anxiety the melting of the Balkan snows, which put an end to
enforced inactivity in those regions."
Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy were agreed in
desiring a Conference of the Powers which had been parties to
the Berlin Treaty of thirty years before, to adjudicate all
the questions raised by the acts of Austria and Bulgaria, in
contravention of that treaty. Austria was supported by Germany
in holding back from such a conference, and nothing definite
in that direction was done. Meantime Turkey was brought to
negotiations with both of the trespassers on her ancient
sovereignty, and within a few months she came to terms with
both. The arrangement with Austria, determining an indemnity
to be paid for the surrender of Turkish claims to Bosnia and
Herzegovina, was quickened by a boycott of Austrian
merchandise in Turkey, so extensive as to be felt very
seriously in Austrian and Hungarian trade. By the terms of a
protocol, which was signed on the 26th of February, 1909,
Austria-Hungary paid £T2,500,000 ($10,800,000) of indemnity to
the Ottoman Government; assured religious freedom and
political equality to Mussulman Bosniaks who should choose to
remain in the province, with liberty of emigration during
three years to all who might choose to depart, and promised a
commercial treaty on lines which the Turks desired. This
cleared the situation as between Austria and Turkey, but
intensified the Servian and Montenegrin bitterness of anger
and dread, which menaced the peace of the continent for
another month.
Meantime the terms of a Turkish adjustment with Bulgaria had
been practically settled, on the basis of a helpful suggestion
from St. Petersburg. Bulgaria offered $16,400,000 of
indemnity; Turkey claimed $24,000,000. The bargaining was at a
standstill until Russia offered to remit a yearly
war-indemnity of $1,600,000 which Russia owed her under the
Berlin Treaty, until the Turkish claim on Bulgaria should be
satisfied, while she would collect from Bulgaria in similar
instalments until the offer of the latter had been made good.
Inasmuch as the Turkish debt to Russia bore no interest, while
Bulgaria would pay interest on the deferred payments to
Russia, the Muscovite treasury would suffer no loss. The
matter was so arranged, and the interests of peace were served
by a most ingenious and happy device.
{260}
But peace was made more than insecure for some weeks yet by
the irreconcilability of Servia to the Austrian annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course that small State could not
hope to resist it successfully alone, or with Montenegrin aid;
but a desperate venture of war, into which Russia might be
dragged, and if Russia, then Germany,—and who could tell what
other powers!—and out of the wreckage of which something
better for Southeastern Europe than an Austro-Hungarian
domination might be drawn,—this appeal to the lottery of
battle seemed a dangerous temptation to the Servian mind. It
was extinguished as such in the end by the decision of Russia
to drop the project of a Conference of Powers, accept the
action of Austria, and recognize, unreservedly, on her own
part, the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an
accomplished fact. This was announced on the 15th of March,
and with the announcement came excited and exciting reports
that Germany had extorted the concession from the Russian
Government, by pressures that were humiliating, but which the
Empire, in its present circumstances, was powerless to resist.
Germany denied having exercised an illegitimate pressure in
the matter, but made no concealment of the fact that she stood
by Austria-Hungary with approval of what the Imperial
Government at Vienna had done. In a speech on the 29th of
March Chancellor Bülow was reported as saying:
"In her quarrel with Servia Austria indisputably had right on
her side. The annexation was no cynical act of robbery, but
the last step on the road of the political work of
civilization which had been followed for 30 years with the
recognition of the Powers. Any offence against the form of the
law had been disposed of by the negotiations with Turkey, and
after this agreement between the parties most nearly
interested the formal recognition of the other Powers
signatory of the Berlin Treaty could not be withheld. The
controllers of Russian policy, and especially the Emperor
Nicholas, had earned the gratitude of all friends of peace in
Europe. Concerning the Conference question, Germany still had
no objection in principle to a Conference in which all the
Powers took part and of which the programme was established in
advance. They had been charged with inactivity, but they had
no reason for special activity. They had done what they could
and used influence, not without success, between Vienna and
Constantinople, and also between Vienna and St. Petersburg.
They had, however, carefully observed the limits prescribed by
their interests and their loyalty. They had done nothing, and
they would do nothing, which could afford the smallest doubt
of their determination to sacrifice no vital interest of
Austria-Hungary, and they would have nothing to do with
suggestions to Austria which were incompatible with the
dignity of the Hapsburg Monarchy. They had experiences of
their own to inspire caution with regard to playing the part
of the broker, even in the most honourable way. … To sum up,
by loyalty to her ally Germany best secured her own interests
and contributed most to the maintenance of the peace of
Europe."
On the day of this speech at Berlin the London Times expressed, in an editorial article, what was then and what
continues to be the prevailing belief and judgment of the best
informed political circles throughout Europe, when it said:
"The decision of the Russian Government to recognize the
annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was, of course, an
admission of their inability, in present circumstances, to
countenance the aspirations of the Southern Slavs. The intense
and general indignation which it has excited in Russia is
natural, and indeed, in the known state of public feeling,
inevitable. We trust, however, that it may be kept within
bounds, and that it will not find expression in useless and
vehement invective. Those who are tempted to indulge in it
without restraint should reflect upon the difficulties which
confront the responsible rulers of the State, and should
consider whether, as Statesmen answerable for the future, as
well as for the immediate present, of the Empire and of the
Slav race, those rulers could wisely have rejected the
proposal peremptorily made to them by the German Ambassador.
The cardinal fact in the situation—the fact upon which
Austria-Hungary and Germany have based their calculations and
determined their action throughout—is that Russia could not
for some time to come engage in a great war without incurring
unjustified risks. Nothing, we may be sure, but the
overwhelming consciousness of this fact could have induced the
Emperor and his advisers to adopt the decision to which they
came a few days ago. They must have been well aware of the
painful effect which it was certain to produce, in the first
instance, abroad as well as at home. None can have realized
more acutely than they that the presentation of the demand was
humiliating, and that the circumstances attending it were
eminently calculated to make that humiliation bitter. But they
held, and rightly held, that it was their duty to accept
humiliation rather than to jeopardize the great permanent
interests which are committed to their keeping. They might,
indeed, have been somewhat less precipitate. They might
reasonably have asked for time for consulting the Powers with
whom they have acted, and who have consistently supported
them, upon the proposals which Germany sprang upon them. The
fact that they did not do so is a significant indication that
the pressure which Count Pourtalès was instructed to put upon
them must have been of the most imperious and dictatorial
kind.
"As to the precise form of the intimation conveyed to M.
Isvolsky by the German Ambassador no definite information is
yet forthcoming, but of its nature there can be no possible
doubt. Our Paris Correspondent learns that, immediately after
his interview with Count Pourtalès, the Russian Minister
summoned a Council, and, after a hasty audience with the Tsar,
communicated to the German Ambassador Russia’s acquiescence in
the demands of his Government. There was no alternative to
this course, as we are told from St. Petersburg, unless Russia
was prepared to face the consequences of the mobilization of
the German Army. The matter, our Correspondent adds, was
treated as of ‘supreme urgency,’ from which it may be inferred
that a reply was required without delay. The Council of
Ministers knew what ‘German mobilization’ in the circumstances
would mean."
{261}
In appearance, if not in reality, Germany or Germany’s Kaiser
had again, as in the Morocco affair of 1905, taken advantage
of the weakened circumstances of Russia to play a dictatorial
part in European politics. The distrust and apprehension kept
alive by such repeated performances of the military big stick
at Berlin seem infinitely more dangerous to Europe than any
possible explosion of the unstable compounds of race,
religion, and lawless politics that are mixed in the Balkan
magazine. For the time being, however, the sparks that
sputtered alarmingly in the latter, throughout the winter of
1908-1909, were easily extinguished by the sudden dash of cold
water upon them from St. Petersburg. Great Britain, France,
and Italy, accepting the situation, joined Germany and Russia
in persuading the Government at Belgrade to be equally
submissive to events. Their persuasions were effective, and a
note to the following purpose, which the Powers in question
had formulated, was signed by the Servian Ministry and
presented to the Government at Vienna on the 31st of March:
"(1.) Servia declares that her rights have not been violated
by the annexation by Austria-Hungary of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and accepts the Powers’ decision to annul
paragraph 25 of the Treaty of Berlin.
(2.) Servia will not protest against the annexation of Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
(3.) Servia will maintain peaceful relations with
Austria-Hungary.
(4.) Servia will return her military forces to normal
conditions, and will discharge the reservists and volunteers;
she will not permit the formation of irregular troops or
bands."
The arbitrary annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was now
legitimated; the Treaty of Berlin was revised by violations
condoned; a serious precedent had been injected into European
public law. What was said on the subject by the London
Times on the morning after the delivery of the Servian
note is hardly open to the least dispute. "The danger of war,"
said the Times, "has thus, we may confidently hope, been
averted. But the sense of immediate relief with which this
deliverance may well be greeted cannot blind us to the cost at
which it has been achieved. The first great international
compact to which the new German Empire of the Hohenzollerns
subscribed within a few months of its proclamation at
Versailles was that which embodied the resolutions of the
London Conference of 1871. The European Powers, rightly
disputing Russia’s claim to denounce motu proprio the Black
Sea Clauses of the Treaty of Paris, maintained that no
revision of an international treaty could take place without
‘impartial examination’ and ‘free discussion.’ None upheld
that principle more stoutly than Austria-Hungary. Russia
herself finally accepted it, and it was solemnly placed on
record by Lord Granville in his opening speech as President of
the London Conference. It was embodied in a Protocol, signed
by all the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers, laying down as ‘an
essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can
repudiate treaty engagements or modify treaty provisions,
except with the consent of the contracting parties by mutual
agreement.’ That instrument has, until recently, governed the
public law of Europe. In conformity with its provisions,
Russia, after her war with Turkey in 1877-1878, was fain to
submit the Treaty of San Stefano to the Congress of Berlin;
and again in 1885 a Conference was held at Constantinople to
settle the question of the union of Eastern Rumelia with
Bulgaria which had been effected in violation of the Treaty of
Berlin. Five months ago, immediately after the annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary and the proclamation
of Bulgarian independence, Great Britain, France, and Russia
were agreed, after M. Isvolsky’s conversations with M.
Clemenceau and Sir Edward Grey, that the same 'essential
principle of the law of nations’ was once more at stake and
must be upheld. Italy adhered subsequently to that agreement,
which took shape in the suggestion for a conference, and
neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary openly rejected it at the
time. …
"The terms of the submission now made by Servia at the
instance of the Powers show how far we have travelled away
from that ‘essential principle of the law of nations’ since
October last. … Whether the formal ratification of the
breaches of international law which were committed last autumn
takes place now at a Conference, or by an exchange of Notes,
is a matter of small moment. In substance the Powers have
already conveyed their acquiescence in the abrogation of
Article XXV. of the Berlin Treaty concerning Bosnia and
Herzegovina, without the slightest show even of that
‘impartial examination’ and ‘perfectly free discussion’ which
the London Conference of 1871 laid down as an essential
preliminary to the revision of treaty engagements."
There was an illuminating sequel to this transaction near the
end of the year, in the trial of a libel suit, known as the
Friedjung case, which uncovered many hidden circumstances of
the annexation. One of the arguments by which the annexation
of Bosnia-Herzegovina was defended at the time was the
necessity of putting an end to an alleged conspiracy of the
Southern Slavs against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
See (in this Volume),
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1908-1909.
"Agram Trials", page 40.)
At the trial it was proved that the "documents" which had been
accepted as proving the existence of this conspiracy were
forgeries of the clumsiest description.
EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
Changed conditions making for peace.
Three striking examples.
Speaking at Sheffield, England, on the occasion of "the
Cutlers’ Feast," October 21, Sir Edward Grey, the British
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, called to mind, in a few
admirable sentences, three illustrations in the past year of
wonderfully changed conditions in Europe, making for peace. He
said:
"In the world at large to-day—if I may say a few words about
the business of my own department—there is no doubt plenty of
trouble, as there always is, but if you take the true measure
of the situation by comparing it with what it was a short time
ago, the outlook is distinctly favourable. I will give you
three points which are, I think, subjects of congratulation.
"It is only a year ago to this very month that we were at the
beginning of what was called the Balkan crisis. I do not know
whether the Budget has driven all recollection of it from your
minds, but it did occupy a good deal of attention a year ago
and for some months afterwards. For a long time it had been
almost an axiom of the diplomacy of Europe that some day or
other there would be trouble in the Balkans, and that, when
that trouble came, there would be danger of a European war.
The trouble came a year ago; it caused anxiety; there was a
storm; and for some months some anxiety as to whether one or

other of the Great European Powers might not drift from their
moorings.
{262}
But the anchors held, and now the swell has subsided, and
though there may be trouble again in the future, the fact that
the Great Powers of Europe have passed through the Balkan
troubles of the last year and yet maintained their peace is a
good augury that in future troubles the same may be done.
"Then I will take the question of Persia. A few years ago, had
any one foretold exactly what has happened in Persia in the
last year—that there would be a revolution, that there would
be great outbreaks of disorder throughout the country, and
that the Shah would be deposed—he would certainly have said
that it would be a time of considerable anxiety both for
Russia and for ourselves. A few years ago the representatives
of those two countries were watching each other in Persia with
jealousy, suspicion, and distrust. Had what has happened in
Persia in the last year happened a few years ago when those
were the relations between the two countries, I do not say
that there would actually have been war, but there would
certainly have been considerable anxiety and considerable
scares in the public opinion of both countries as to the
effect upon their relations with each other. Now we have
passed through the troubles of the last year in Persia, and in
no section of the Press of either country, in no section of
public opinion of either country, has there been a fear that
relations between ourselves and Russia would be impaired by
what was happening in Persia.
"The third subject to which I would refer is that of Morocco.
Morocco is to-day very full of trouble, and the trouble is a
matter of concern and worry to those Powers who have
conterminous frontiers in Morocco. That of course is so, but
look back over the last few years and survey. The matter which
occupied men’s minds in regard to Morocco was not the troubles
in Morocco itself but the possible effect which events in
Morocco might have upon the relations of the European Powers
to each other. To-day the trouble continues in Morocco, but
during the last year the anxiety that what was happening in
Morocco might cause serious difficulties between European
Powers themselves has greatly diminished if it has not
entirely disappeared. That, again, is a satisfactory
retrospect."
EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
Contradictory feeling and action concerning War.
Its causes.
International Barbarism with Inter-personal Civilization.
The two main knots of difficulty in the situation.
Great Britain and Germany.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
Size and cost of its armies.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
----------EUROPE: End--------
EVANS, Rear-Admiral Robley D.:
Commanding the American Battleship Fleet.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
EVICTED TENANTS ACT.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1907.
EXCLUSION OF ALIENS.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION, AND RACE PROBLEMS.
EXPATRIATION:
Its Rights.
Principles maintained by the United States.
See (in this Volume)
NATURALIZATION.
EXPLORATION, Polar.
See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.
EXPOSITIONS, Industrial.
See (in this Volume)
BUFFALO; ST. LOUIS; CHARLESTON;
JAMESTOWN; PORTLAND, OREGON; SEATTLE.
EZCURRA, COLONEL:
Deposed President of Paraguay.
See (in this Volume)
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.
F.
FABIAN SOCIETY.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
FAIRBANKS, Charles W.:
Elected Vice-President of the United States.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).
FAKUMENN RAILWAY QUESTION, between Japan and China.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1905-1909.
FALLIÈRES, ARMAND:
President of the French Senate.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1903.
FALLIÈRES, ARMAND:
President of the French Republic.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
FALL RIVER STRIKE, in the Cotton Mills.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1905.
FAMINES:
In China.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1906-1907.
FAMINES:
In India: The poverty they signify.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA; A. D. 1905-1908.
FAMINES:
In Russia.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904.
FARADAY, MICHAEL:
His Prophetic Conception of Radiant Matter.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE, RECENT: RADIUM.
FARM COLONY, Cleveland, Ohio.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF.
FARMAN, Henri.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: AERONAUTICS.
FARMERS’ ORGANIZATIONS.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909; and
LABOR REMUNERATION: COÖPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
FEDAKIARANS, The.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
FEDERAL PARTY.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 and 1907.
FEHIM PASHA, THE FATE OF.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908(JULY-DECEMBER), AND 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
FEJERVARY MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
FENGHUANGCHENG.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
FENSHUILING.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), AND (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
FERRER, Professor Francisco:
His trial and execution.
See (in this Volume)
Spain: A. D. 1907-1909.
FERTILIZER TRUST:
Dissolution and indictment.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.
{263}
FETVA, of the Sheik-ul-Islam.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
FIALA ARCTIC EXPLORATION.
See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.
FICHTE’S PROPHECY, of a World Commonwealth.
See (in this Volume)
WORLD MOVEMENTS.
FILIPINO CATHOLIC CHURCH, Independent.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902.
----------FINANCE AND TRADE: Start--------
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.
A Review of the decade.
The Sequence of Phenomena from the beginning of "the great
Trade Boom" to the Collapse of 1907, and after.
The Process of Recovery.
On the 31st of December, 1908, the New York Evening
Post gave an admirably studied and clear, though succinct,
review of the sequence of phenomena in financial and
commercial affairs that could be traced through "the series of
years since the great trade boom began which collapsed in
1907," and thence to the close of 1908. By permission of the
proprietors of the Evening Post a considerable part of
that review is quoted here. While it relates more especially
to conditions and events in the United States, it affords
substantially a summary of the financial history of the world
from 1901 to 1908, both inclusive:
"1901.
This was preeminently the ‘boom year’—much more legitimately
so, as events have proved, than 1905 or 1906, when
overstrained capital resources gave an atmosphere of unreality
to what seemed altogether real in the days of abundant capital
in 1901. It is first to be said of 1901 that a probably
unexampled surplus of ready capital in the United States, and
a certainly unprecedented foreign credit balance—due to our
amazing surplus of exports over imports—happened to coincide
with a period of European trade reaction which released
foreign capital from foreign industries and left it free for
use in America. Presuming the foregoing influences, the six
main causes for the phenomena of 1901 were:
(1) The series of enormous company amalgamations, beginning
with the billion-dollar Steel incorporation, and culminating
in the purchase of the British steamship lines at wildly
extravagant prices; these operations being based on issues of
securities in unprecedented quantity;
(2) Formation of ‘underwriting syndicates’ to float these
securities, one of those syndicates receiving a bonus of
$50,000,000 for one year’s use of $25,000,000, and all of them
using freely for their purposes the surpluses of life
insurance companies and the deposits of trust companies;
(3) Acquisition of control of great railway companies by
powerful millionaires, through purchase of stock of these
railways in the open market, often at extravagant prices; the
purchase-money being obtained through issue of bonds by
railways already under control of the purchasers;
(4) Wild speculation by the public;
(5) Sudden fright of Europe at our excesses, withdrawal of its
capital, and consequent severe reaction in our markets;
(6) The failure of the corn crop, which in the summer applied
a further check to this speculation, but which was itself
offset by a wheat crop larger than any harvested in this
country before or since, and sold at the highest average price
since 1897.
"1902.
This year was one both of reaction and of further expansion;
it was both a legitimate sequel to 1901 and a legitimate
forerunner of 1903. …
"Its salient phenomena were these:
(1) Abundant harvests;
(2) Overstraining of bank resources by financial ‘deals’ and
Stock Exchange speculation, exhausting the bank surplus in
September;
(3) Enormous increase in imports and decrease in agricultural
exports, along with Europe’s withdrawal of its capital;
(4) Rapid advance in cost of raw material and labor;
(5) Struggle of capitalists to so entrench themselves in
control of corporate enterprises that they could not be
dislodged.
"1903.
The year which followed was an entirely logical sequel. Its
controlling factors were:
(1) Forced liquidation by individuals and syndicates who were
tied up in new securities at a time when the investing public
withdrew from the market;
(2) Inability of great corporations to sell bonds, and their
resort to notes at a high interest rate;
(3) Abundant grain crops, but an inadequate cotton crop, with
great speculation, and famine prices;
(4) Rapid fall in the price of steel and iron;
(5) Severe contraction in profits of industrial combinations,
with reduced dividends in some, reorganization of capital in
others, and bankruptcy in still others.
"1904.
For obvious reasons, 1904 is an interesting year to compare
with 1908. Both were in a sense 'after-panic years,’ though
the strain of 1903, and the resultant financial and commercial
reaction of 1904, were trifles compared with those of the past
two years. It will be seen that 1904, which did in fact usher
in another great boom in trade, paralleled closely in some
respects the history of 1908, but in others diverged very
widely from it. Its dominant influences were:
(1) A huge surplus reserve at the New York banks, reaching in
August a height only four times exceeded in the country’s
history, and as a result a 1 per cent. call money market
during two-thirds of the year;
(2) The largest gold export movement in the history of the
country;
(3) A midsummer recovery on the Stock Exchange, with large
investment buying;
(4) A Presidential campaign, which hardly affected business;
(5) Substantial, but not very rapid, trade revivals, without
any of the extravagant optimism of 1908;
(6) Famine prices for cotton during half the year, followed by
a new crop unparalleled in history, and by a heavy fall in
prices;
(7) Virtual disappearance of our export trade in wheat, with
the smallest harvest since 1900, the highest prices since
1898, and the smallest shipment to Europe since 1872. The
Russian war, which began in February, affected our markets
only indirectly.
{264}
" 1905.
This year’s history is better understood to-day than it has
been before. The testimony of the whole financial and
commercial world now is, that the exploiting of capital in
trade and speculation, which eventually brought about the
recent panic, and the abnormal enhancement of cost of living,
which lifted the average price of commodities as much in two
years as it had risen in the eight preceding years, began in
the middle of 1905. These were the salient incidents of the
financial year:
(1) Rapid and vigorous trade revival, with industry and
production probably more active than at any previous period,
and with profits and dividends enhanced;
(2) Exposure of the use of life insurance funds by promoting
and speculating millionaires, an exposure which ended in
legislation preventing such use of them in future
speculations;
(3) World-wide money stringency, with the New York bank
surplus twice exhausted, London’s bank position the weakest
since 1890, and Berlin’s the weakest since 1897;
(4) Excited stock speculation for the rise, in this country
and in Germany, which in New York almost wholly disregarded
the abnormal strain on money.
"1906.
Neither the $400,000,000 loss at San Francisco in April, nor
the Treasury’s efforts to relieve an overstrained New York
money market in September, was a fundamental cause for the
events of 1906. They were a true sequel to 1905, and may be
summarized as follows:
(1) Enormous Volume of trade, the whole world over, with rapid
rise in price of goods, but equally rapid rise in cost of raw
material and labor;
(2) Grain harvests, as a whole, never paralleled in Volume,
and wheat crop second only to 1901;
(3) Wild speculation by all classes of the community,
particularly in land, mining shares, and Stock Exchange
securities, but not as a rule in produce, the wealthiest
capitalists in the country entering into stock speculation in
the late summer, and using most unscrupulously their power
over company finance to help along their purposes;
(4) Overstrained bank resources as a result, with five
deficits at New York, occurring in spring, autumn, and winter,
two of these deficits being the largest since 1893;
(5) Abnormally high money rates all the year, with the highest
September rate for call loans ever reached in New York, and
the highest rate for time loans and merchants’ paper reached
at that time of year since 1872;
(6) Sudden decision by Europe that American credit was
unlimited, and the consequent placing of foreign capital
unrestrictedly at our disposal;
(7) Struggle between London and New York for possession of new
gold arriving in London, resulting in our import of
$40,000,000 gold from Europe in the spring, and $45,000,000 in
the autumn, and leading to a rise of the Bank of England rate
to 6 per cent. for the first time since the Boer war panic,
and to an energetic effort on the Bank’s part to stop the
wholesale equipping of the American speculation with London
bank money.
"1907.
The panic year’s story may be told without further
introduction, summing up thus its characteristic events:
(1) Withdrawal by Europe of the capital loaned to us in 1906,
leading, early in the year, to $32,000,000 gold exports to
Europe, of which $25,000,000 went to France:
(2) Partial withdrawal of their capital from Wall Street by
interior markets, which were said to have had $400,000,000
outstanding in New York during 1906;
(3) Distress of the immensely wealthy capitalists who had tied
themselves up in the Wall Street speculation of 1906, their
forced liquidation on an enormous scale, and consequent
demoralized Stock Exchange markets in March and August;
(4) Very abnormal crop weather throughout the spring and over
nearly all the world, with a resultant shortage of the whole
world’s wheat crop, the deficit of supplies below expected
requirements being probably the largest since 1890.
"(5) Revelation of unsound banking practices at New York in
October; leading to the failure of the Knickerbocker Trust, a
formidable run on the banks, adoption of Clearing House
certificates in all the larger cities and issue of emergency
credit currency in many; to restriction of cash payments to
depositors throughout the country, to a premium on currency,
to complete demoralization of interior exchange, and to
insolvency of several large industrial companies and numerous
banks—neither, however, reaching the number which shortly
followed the panic of 1893;
(6) Import of $100,000,000 gold from Europe during November
and December, most of it bought at a premium and some of it
engaged with sight sterling at 4.91;
(7) As a result, large inroads on the Bank of England’s gold
reserve, rise in the bank rate from 4½ to 7 per cent., rapid
advance of all continental bank rates, and loan of large sums
of gold by the Bank of France to the Bank of England.
"(8) Precarious position of financial Germany throughout the
year, important failures at Hamburg, minor financial panics in
Holland, Egypt, Italy, and Chili, many of them before our own;
(9) Intervention of our Treasury, which wisely placed all its
surplus on deposit with the banks in October, and most
unwisely undertook to issue $150,000,000 bonds and notes in
November to provide basis for new bank-note circulation;
(10) Recovery in markets late in November, with slow return of
the bank situation to normal, the currency premium at New York
lasting longer than in either 1893 or 1873;
(11) Discharge of laborers from employment all over the
country, and the beginning of severe trade reaction—all this
in spite of the largest annual gold output in the history of
the world.
"1908.
Now comes the present remarkable after-panic year, of which
the salient phenomena may be thus summed up:
(1) Spasmodic and irregular recovery in trade activity,
starting from a very low level, with merchants rushing in
suddenly with orders—in February, in July, and in
November—when their shelves were almost depleted, these buying
impulses ceasing as suddenly as they had begun, leaving trade
stagnation again;
(2) Slow increase in consumption of merchandise, here and
abroad, the ratio being below 30 per cent. of normal at the
beginning of the year, and 60 to 75 per cent. on the average
at its close;
(3) Sudden shrinkage of our international commerce,
merchandise trade in eleven months falling $478,000,000 from
1907, a decline of 15 per cent., of which $326,000,000 was
imports and $152,000,000 exports, experience of European
nations being similar;
(4) Enormous increase in the unemployed, leading, at the
Atlantic ports, to an emigration 250,000 larger than
immigration;
(5) Severe contraction of railway earnings, resulting in
twenty-four railway insolvencies, involving the largest
capital of any receiverships since those of 1893, and causing
many dividend reductions, but followed, after the middle of
the year, by such enormous reduction in expenses that, in some
cases, autumn net earnings actually increased over 1907;
{265}
"(6) Sudden rush of currency into the banks, as a result,
first of removal of restrictions on depositors and next of
idle trade, with resultant change from a $20,000,000 New York
bank deficit at the end of 1907 to a surplus of $40,000,000 at
the end of January and of $66,000,000 on June 27—the latter
being second only to the $111,000,000 maximum of 1894;
(7) As a consequence, abnormally low rates for money, call
loans going at 2 per cent. before the end of January, at 1 per
cent. in eighteen weeks of the present year, and at less than
1 per cent. in three weeks;
(8) Export of $73,000,000 gold, the largest (except for 1904)
since 1895, and net export of $45,000,000, the largest in
thirteen years;
"(9) In spite of the above recited facts, a constant spirit of
optimism throughout the year, expressing itself, first in the
organization of ‘Prosperity Leagues’ which held conventions
and proclaimed that if people would only decide to be
prosperous, they would be prosperous, and second by a series
of extravagant speculative movements on the Stock Exchange, in
the course of which it was declared in February, in July, and
in November, that we were not only destined to get back into
the boom of 1906, but that we were there already;
(10) A wheat harvest which in midsummer promised to be the
second largest on record, but which turned out only of average
Volume, the quality and price for this and other cereals,
however, being so good as to enhance very greatly the wealth
of the agricultural West;
(11) A Presidential election, the result of which the markets
and all experienced people foresaw from the beginning, but of
which it was alleged, for two weeks in November, that its
outcome had totally changed for the better the entire aspect
of American business affairs."
1909.
The following, from the New York Evening Post of
December 31, 1909, continues the review:
The noteworthy characteristics of "the year which ends to-day,
… so far as they can now be discerned, have been as follows:
(1) Rapid industrial recovery, beginning with the steel
trade’s reduction of prices, leading in September to the
largest monthly output of iron and steel in the history of the
country, and to heavy demand from consumers, but contrasting
singularly with the copper market, where signs of
overproduction were visible throughout the year;
(2) Very rapid increase in cost of necessaries of life,
affecting chiefly food, clothing, and rent, leading in the
autumn to bitter complaint and to numerous strikes for higher
wages, notably on the railways;
(3) Along with reviving trade, a speculation of great
magnitude on the Stock Exchange, ascribed to the initiative of
very powerful finance houses, and converging in a most
peculiar way on United States Steel common shares, whose
dividend was twice advanced, notwithstanding the fact that
quarterly earnings had not recovered to the magnitude of 1906
or 1907, when the dividend had been maintained at the old
rate;
(4) Largely as a result of the tying-up of capital in this
speculation, severe autumn strain on bank reserves, turning a
New York surplus of $34,000,000 on July 10 into one of only
$1,600,000 on October 2, driving Wall Street to probably
unprecedented borrowings from interior banks and from London,
which latter market, under the influence of the Bank of
England, threw back great amounts of these New York loans
during October;
"(5) Call money rates kept down by such expedients, 6 per
cent. being the maximum up to the two closing days of
December;
(6) a wheat corner in June, in the course of which the New
York cash price rose to $1.51 in June, the highest price since
the Leiter corner of 1898, followed by a new wheat crop
unsurpassed in magnitude except for 1901, yet with high prices
continued in later autumn, despite an abundant crop in Europe
also;
(7) A very short crop of cotton, driving the price from 9½
cents a pound, early in the year, to 16 cents in December, the
latter being the highest December price since paper inflation
days, and less than one cent below the highest price in the
corner of 1904;
(8) Import of foreign merchandise wholly unparalleled for
magnitude in our history, causing, in June, July, and August,
an excess of imports over exports for the first time since
1897, and resulting, in the eleven first months of the year,
in a total excess of exports over imports $340,000,000 less
than in 1908, and very much the smallest of any year since
1897;
(9) As a partial consequence, the largest export of gold of
any year in the country’s history, and the largest net export
except for 1894 and the paper money days.
"The prolonged tariff debate in Congress, which high financial
authority declared would hold back financial activity, but
which gave no evidence of doing so, can hardly be classed as a
fundamental influence of the year. Whether Mr. Harriman’s
death in September, with the resultant realignment of forces
in high finance, deserves to be so classed, is a question
which can hardly be passed upon as yet."
FINANCE AND TRADE:
America: Proposal of an International American Bank.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
FINANCE AND TRADE: Asia; A. D. 1909.
Disturbance of Trade by the Fall in Silver Exchange.
The following is a Press telegram from Ottawa, Canada,
June 23, 1909:
"The serious check to American exports to the Orient resulting
from the great fall in the silver exchanges last year is
attracting increasing attention on the Pacific Coast. A League
which describes itself as the Fair Exchange league has been
organized in Ottawa to keep the issues before the Dominion
parliament. It advocates the adoption of the Goschen plan of
1891 jointly by the British empire and the United States with
open mints in India as before 1893. The new movement has
secured a qualified endorsement from J. J. Hill of the Great
Northern railway. Mr. Hill says: ‘We must await the proposals
of the monetary commission at Washington. The silver problem
is full of difficulties. I wish it were possible to ignore it.
But our consuls in Asia warn us that at the present rate of
silver exchange Asia has ceased to import our wheat or flour
or lumber; that the Shanghai merchants who eighteen months
since bought the sovereign or five gold dollars with five
taels, must now pay near eight taels; the result is disaster;
he no longer buys.’"
FINANCE AND TRADE: British Empire: A. D. 1909.
Imperial Congress of Chambers of Commerce.
See (in this Volume)
BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).
FINANCE AND TRADE: England: A. D. 1909.
The Budget of Mr. Lloyd-George.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
{266}
FINANCE AND TRADE: Germany: A. D. 1901-1902.
Industrial Crisis and Period of Depression.
The extraordinary industrial development of Germany between
1895 and 1900 had its usual sequel in a sudden collapse,
followed by a period of depression and slow return to
productive activity. According to Dr. Braun, writing in the
Yale Review of May, 1902, "the cause of the crisis lay
undoubtedly in extreme overproduction, which had continued for
a long time without its significance having been discovered by
any one. Enormous quantities of commodities had been
accumulated, numberless new industrial undertakings had come
into being, or were about to be started, and every one was
counting on further development of production by leaps and
bounds. But a feeling of uncertainty, which should pass into a
crisis, was bound to arise the moment certain unhealthy
conditions of German economic life, which had been covered up
during the period of prosperity, made their appearance.
"The conditions which did arouse this widespread feeling in
German capitalistic circles lay far from the industrial market
itself. Great losses suddenly appeared in the field of
mortgage investments, whose securities had been accepted by
the public as, next to government bonds, the safest form of
investment, and the freest from speculation. These
developments caused a panic among the investing public. This
feeling of panic began, according to my view, at the time when
the authorities found themselves forced to arrest two
directors of the Pomeranian Mortgage Bank (Pommersche
Hypothekenbank), who occupied the highest social position. …
The extraordinary result of the action of the authorities
against the leaders of certain mortgage banks is explained
only by the facts that at the end of 1900, six and two-third
billion marks of mortgage debentures were in circulation, and
that within ten years the amount invested in such debentures
had increased by three billion marks. The great majority of
the small and middle-class capitalists, who wished to invest
their money in safe securities, had put it into mortgage
debentures of this kind. The greatest confidence had been
placed in them, and now, for the first time, the eyes of the
public were open to the fact that great losses could also
ensue from such investments. The five principal offending
banks had at the end of 1900, 692,670,950 marks of mortgage
debentures in circulation. Every one had invested in these,
from the smallest capitalist to the German Empress. The public
and pretentious piety of the directors of the Prussian
Mortgage Stock Bank, who were later placed under arrest, had
induced even church-building associations to place their money
in these debentures."
"Then came the failure of the Dresdener Kreditanstalt, which,
with a capital of 20,000,000 marks, had loaned a single
industrial company, the Dresden Electrical Company, 9,000,000
marks; and this failure was followed by that of the famous
Leipsic Bank, which had loaned 84,000,000 marks to a concern
which had used up its own capital, and was paying fraudulent
dividends of 50 per cent. These two failures frightened the
public into a general withdrawal of deposits from banks of
every class."
FINANCE AND TRADE: Japan: A. D. 1909.
State of the War Debt and its Payment.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
FINANCE AND TRADE: Mexico: A. D. 1905.
Currency Reform.
Cessation of Free Coinage of Silver.
See (in this Volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1904-1905.
FINANCE AND TRADE: United States: A. D. 1908.
The Emergency Currency Act.
What is known as the Emergency Currency Act was passed by
Congress in May, 1908, and received the approval of the
President on the 30th of that month. It is a temporary
measure, for exigencies that may repeat the monetary
experience of 1907 before an adequate reform of the banking
and currency system of the country is effected, and will
expire by limitation on the 30th of June, 1914. It does not
disturb the present National bank note currency of the
country, based on Government bonds, but provides a means by
which an additional Volume, amounting to a total of
$500,000,000, if necessary, may be issued by the National
banks in case of a currency stringency.
There are two ways in which emergency circulation may be
issued. A bank may make an application through the Currency
Association of which it is a member, or, where State and
municipal bonds are offered as security, the application may
be made directly. A Currency Association may be formed by ten
or more banks having an aggregate capital and surplus of at
least $5,000,000. Only one may be formed in any city, and no
bank may belong to more than one. It must be formed by banks
located in territory as contiguous as convenient.
All applications for emergency currency are to be passed upon
by the Secretary of the Treasury after recommendation by the
Comptroller of the Currency. The Secretary will also determine
whether business conditions in the locality warrant the
issuance of such circulation. The distribution of the notes is
likewise left to him. Where application is made through an
Association, the securities are deposited with it; where a
direct application is made, they are deposited with the
Treasurer or any Assistant Treasurer of the United States. All
the members composing an Association are jointly and severally
liable to the United States for the redemption of all
emergency circulation taken out by its members.
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1908.
Banking and Currency Questions in the Party Platforms.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1909.
The "Wall Street Investigation."
Report on the Operations of the Stock Exchange and other
Exchanges of New York City.
In December, 1908, a Special Committee of nine experienced
gentlemen, having Mr. Horace White for its chairman, was
appointed by Governor Hughes, of the State of New York, to
investigate and report "what changes, if any, are advisable in
the laws of the State bearing upon speculation in securities
and commodities, or relating to the protection of investors,
or with regard to the instrumentalities and organizations used
in dealings in securities and commodities which are the
subject of speculation." On the 7th of the following June the
Committee submitted to the Governor an extended report,
describing and discussing the organizations, the
instrumentalities and the methods employed in the dealings
with which their inquiry had to do. The following excerpts
from this important report (known commonly as the "report on
Wall Street") may suffice, perhaps, to convey the main matters
of information afforded by it and the more valuable
conclusions at which the Committee arrived:
{267}
"In law, speculation becomes gambling when the trading which
it involves does not lead, and is not intended to lead, to the
actual passing from hand to hand of the property that is dealt
in. … The rules of all the exchanges forbid gambling as
defined by this opinion [of the New York Court of Appeals,
case of Hurd vs. Taylor, 181 New York 231; but they make so
easy a technical delivery of the property contracted for, that
the practical effect of much speculation, in point of form
legitimate, is not greatly different from that of gambling.
Contracts to buy may be privately offset by contracts to sell.
The offsetting may be done, in a systematic way, by clearing
houses, or by ‘ring settlements.’ Where deliveries are
actually made, property may be temporarily borrowed for the
purpose. In these ways, speculation which has the legal traits
of legitimate dealing may go on almost as freely as mere
wagering, and may have most of the pecuniary and immoral
effects of gambling on a large scale.
"A real distinction exists between speculation which is
carried on by persons of means and experience, and based on an
intelligent forecast, and that which is carried on by persons
without these qualifications. The former is closely connected
with regular business. While not unaccompanied by waste and
loss, this speculation accomplishes an amount of good which
offsets much of its cost. The latter does but a small amount
of good and an almost incalculable amount of evil. In its
nature it is in the same class with gambling upon the
race-track or at the roulette table, but is practised on a
vastly larger scale. Its ramifications extend to all parts of
the country. It involves a practical certainty of loss to
those who engage in it.
"The problem, wherever speculation is strongly rooted, is to
eliminate that which is wasteful and morally destructive,
while retaining and allowing free play to that which is
beneficial. The difficulty in the solution of the problem lies
in the practical impossibility of distinguishing what is
virtually gambling from legitimate speculation. The most
fruitful policy will be found in measures which will lessen
speculation by persons not qualified to engage in it. In
carrying out such a policy exchanges can accomplish more than
legislatures. …
"The New York Stock Exchange is a voluntary association,
limited to 1,100 members, of whom about 700 are active, some
of them residents of other cities. Memberships are sold for
about $80,000. The Exchange as such does no business, merely
providing facilities to members and regulating their conduct.
The governing power is in an elected committee of forty
members and is plenary in scope. The business transacted on
the floor is the purchase and sale of stocks and bonds of
corporations and governments. Practically all transactions
must be completed by delivery and payment on the following
day. The mechanism of the Exchange, provided by its
constitution and rules, is the evolution of more than a
century. …
"The Volume of transactions indicates that the Exchange is
to-day probably the most important financial institution in
the world. In the past decade the average annual sales of
shares have been 196,500,000 at prices involving an annual
average turnover of nearly $15,500,000,000; bond transactions
averaged about $800,000,000. This enormous business affects
the financial and credit interests of the country in so large
a measure that its proper regulation is a matter of
transcendent importance. While radical changes in the
mechanism, which is now so nicely adjusted that the
transactions are carried on with the minimum of friction,
might prove disastrous to the whole country, nevertheless
measures should be adopted to correct existing abuses.
"It is unquestionable that only a small part of the
transactions upon the Exchange is of an investment character;
a substantial part may be characterized as virtually gambling.
Yet we are unable to see how the State could distinguish by
law between proper and improper transactions, since the forms
and the mechanisms used are identical. Rigid statutes directed
against the latter would seriously interfere with the former.
The experience of Germany with similar legislation is
illuminating.
See (in this Volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
But the Exchange, with the plenary power over members and
their operations, could provide correctives, as we shall show.
"Purchasing securities on margin is as legitimate a
transaction as a purchase of any other property in which part
payment is deferred. We therefore see no reason whatsoever for
recommending the radical change suggested, that margin trading be
prohibited. … In so far as losses are due to insufficient
margins, they would be materially reduced if the customary
percentage of margins were increased. The amount of margin
which a broker requires from a speculative buyer of stocks
depends, in each case, on the credit of the buyer; and the
amount of credit which one person may extend to another is a
dangerous subject on which to legislate. Upon the other hand,
a rule made by the Exchange could safely deal with the
prevalent rate of margins required from customers. In
preference, therefore, to recommending legislation, we urge
upon all brokers to discourage speculation upon small margins
and upon the Exchange to use its influence, and, if necessary,
its power, to prevent members from soliciting and generally
accepting business on a less margin than 20 per cent.
"‘Pyramiding,’ which is the use of paper profits in stock
transactions as a margin for further commitments, should be
discouraged. The practice tends to produce more extreme
fluctuations and more rapid wiping out of margins. If the
stock brokers and the banks would make it a rule to value
securities for the purpose of margin or collateral, not at the
current price of the moment, but at the average price of, say,
the previous two or three months (provided that such average
price were not higher than the price of the moment), the
dangers of pyramiding would be largely prevented.
"We have been strongly urged to advise the prohibition or
limitation of short sales, not only on the theory that it is
wrong to agree to sell what one does not possess, but that
such sales reduce the market price of the securities involved.
{268}
We do not think that it is wrong to agree to sell something
that one does not now possess, but expects to obtain later.
Contracts and agreements to sell, and deliver in the future,
property which one does not possess at the time of the
contract, are common in all kinds of business. The man who has
‘sold short’ must some day buy in order to return the stock
which he has borrowed to make the short sale. Short-sellers
endeavor to select times when prices seem high in order to
sell, and times when prices seem low in order to buy, their
action in both cases serving to lessen advances and diminish
declines of price. In other words, short-selling tends to
produce steadiness in prices, which is an advantage to the
community. No other means of restraining unwarranted marking
up and down of prices has been suggested to us. …
"A subject to which we have devoted much time and thought is
that of the manipulation of prices by large interests. This
falls into two general classes:
(1.) That which is resorted to for the purpose of making a
market for issues of new securities.
(2.) That which is designed to serve merely speculative
purposes in the endeavor to make a profit as the result of
fluctuations which have been planned in advance.
The first kind of manipulation has certain advantages, and
when not accompanied by ‘matched orders' is unobjectionable
per se. …
"The second kind of manipulation mentioned is undoubtedly open
to serious criticism. It has for its object either the
creation of high prices for particular stocks, in order to
draw in the public as buyers and to unload upon them the
holdings of the operators, or to depress the prices and induce
the public to sell. There have been instances of gross and
unjustifiable manipulation of securities, as in the case of
American Ice stock. While we have been unable to discover any
complete remedy short of abolishing the Stock Exchange itself,
we are convinced that the Exchange can prevent the worst forms
of this evil by exercising its influence and authority over
the members to prevent them. When continued manipulation
exists it is patent to experienced observers.
"In the foregoing discussion we have confined ourselves to
bona-fide sales. So far as manipulation of either class
is based upon fictitious or so-called ‘wash sales’ it is open
to the severest condemnation, and should be prevented by all
possible means. These fictitious sales are forbidden by the
rules of all the regular exchanges, and are not enforceable at
law. They are less frequent than many persons suppose. … There
is, however, another class of transactions called ‘matched
orders,’ which differ materially from those already mentioned,
in that they are actual and enforceable contracts. We refer to
that class of transactions, engineered by some manipulator,
who sends a number of orders simultaneously to different
brokers, some to buy and some to sell. These brokers, without
knowing that other brokers have countervailing orders from the
same principal, execute their orders upon the floor of the
Exchange, and the transactions become binding contracts; they
cause an appearance of activity in a certain security which is
unreal. Since they are legal and binding, we find a difficulty
in suggesting a legislative remedy. But where the activities
of two or more brokers in a certain securities become so
extreme as to indicate manipulation rather than genuine
transactions, the officers of the Exchange would be remiss
unless they exercised their influence and authority upon such
members. …
"The subject of corners in the stock market has engaged our
attention. The Stock Exchange might properly adopt a rule
providing that the governors shall have power to decide when a
corner exists and to fix a settlement price, so as to relieve
innocent persons from the injury or ruin which may result
therefrom. The mere existence of such a rule would tend to
prevent corners."
Speaking in a general way, it may be said that the Committee
holds the directorate of the Stock Exchange responsible for
evils connected with the operations that are centralized by
it. "It has almost unlimited power over the conduct of its
members," says the report, "and it can subject them to instant
discipline for wrongdoing." As a voluntary organization it is
more free in the exercise of this power than it would be if
incorporated and brought under the authority and supervision
of the State and the process of the courts. Hence the
Committee refrains from advising the incorporation of the
Exchange; but it does so only on the assumption that it "will
in the future take full advantage of the powers conferred upon
it by its voluntary organization." In the past it has failed
to do so.
At the same time, the Committee corrects an erroneous public
notion that Wall Street and the Stock Exchange are one and the
same thing. "An investigation was made of the transactions on
the Exchange for a given day, when the sales were 1,500,000
shares. The returns showed that on that day 52 per cent. of
the total transactions on the Exchange apparently originated
in New York city, and 48 per cent. in other localities."
The operations of the various other trading exchanges in New
York,—the Consolidated Stock Exchange, "the Curb," so called,
and the several "commodity exchanges," where dealings in
produce, cotton, coffee, etc., are centered,—are discussed in
the report, with disapproval of some. The abuses which find
their opportunity in the unorganized Curb market,—carried on
within a roped-off section of Broad Street,—are set forth with
distinctness, and are traced clearly to the tolerance and
encouragement afforded to them by the Stock Exchange. "About
85 per cent, of the business of the Curb," says the report,
"comes through the offices of members of the New York Stock
Exchange, but a provision of the constitution of that Exchange
prohibits its members from becoming members of, or dealing on,
any other organized Stock Exchange in New York.
Accordingly, operators on the curb market have not attempted
to form an organization. The attitude of the Stock Exchange is
therefore largely responsible for the existence of such abuses
as result from the want of organization of the curb market.
The brokers dealing on the latter do not wish to lose their
best customers, and hence they submit to these irregularities
and inconveniences. Some of the members of the Exchange
dealing on the curb have apparently been satisfied with the
prevailing conditions, and in their own selfish interests have
maintained an attitude of indifference toward abuses. We are
informed that some of the most flagrant cases of discreditable
enterprises finding dealings on the curb were promoted by
members of the New York Stock Exchange. The present apparent
attitude of the Exchange toward the curb seems to us clearly
inconsistent with its moral obligations to the community at
large."
{269}
On the much debated question, whether dealing in
"futures,"—the selling of agricultural products for future
delivery,—should be prohibited or otherwise interfered with,
the report of the Committee is strongly in favor of letting it
alone. It says, "The subject was exhaustively considered by
the Industrial Commission of Congress which in 1901 made an
elaborate report (Volume VI.), showing that selling for future
delivery, based upon a forecast of future conditions of supply
and demand, is an indispensable part of the world’s commercial
machinery, by which prices are, as far as possible, equalized
throughout the year to the advantage of both producer and
consumer. The subject is also treated with clearness and
impartiality in the Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, in an
article on ‘Speculation and Farm Prices’; where it is shown
that since the yearly supply of wheat, for example, matures
within a comparatively short period of time, somebody must
handle and store the great bulk of it during the interval
between production and consumption. Otherwise the price will
be unduly depressed at the end of one harvest and
correspondingly advanced before the beginning of another.
Buying for future delivery causes advances in prices; selling
short tends to restrain inordinate advances. In each case
there must be a buyer and a seller, and the interaction of
their trading steadies prices. Speculation thus brings into
the market a distinct class of people possessing capital and
special training who assume the risks of holding and
distributing the proceeds of the crops from one season to
another with the minimum of cost to producer and consumer."
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1909-1910.
The "Central Bank" Question.
In Boston, at the outset of President Taft's tour of the
country in the fall of 1909, he made a speech on financial
subjects which touched the old question of the need in the
country of a Central Bank of Issue, as an instrument for the
automatic or natural regulation of its currency, in quantity
and distribution. This gave the opening to a revival of
discussions which have been seldom heard since Jackson’s time.
A clear, succinct statement of the banking conditions which
have revived this question, with explanations of what it
involves, appears in the following, borrowed from a monthly
financial letter sent out in November by the National City
Bank of Chicago:
"The creation of a Central Bank of Issue as a cure for the
defects of our financial system is of such importance that a
brief review of the proposition may be of interest to our
clients:
"The business of banking is probably as sound in this country
as in any other. Our individual banks are, as a rule,
prudently, honestly and capably managed. During normal times
they deserve and enjoy the confidence of the public which they
efficiently serve. Yet only two years ago they practically
suspended because the system—that is the relation of one bank
to all the others—had collapsed. This occurred while there was
more gold in the country than existed in several of the other

leading commercial nations combined, and while nearly all of
the twenty or more thousand banks in the United States were
sound, solvent, and in normal condition. With over
$900,000,000 of gold in the United States Treasury, and
several hundred millions more in the country, we imported at
great cost about $100,000,000 chiefly from the coffers of the
Bank of England, which itself only held $105,000,000.
"The loss on investments and to general business by such a
panic as that of 1907 is beyond computation. When we consider
that we have had several such panics within the memory of
living men, and that other and poorer countries possess the
means of avoiding such conditions, we naturally ask what is
wrong or lacking in our financial system as compared to
theirs?
"In times of trouble our reserves scatter. Theirs are massed.
Our currency is rigid and cannot be quickly expanded to meet
an emergency. Their currency is capable of instantaneous
expansion. Our chief gold reserves are in the United States
Treasury unavailable as a basis for such expansion. Their
reserves are in great central banks—immediately available for
currency expansion. Besides, under our national banking
system, a bank in a non-reserve city with deposits of, say
$1,000,000, keeps six per cent, or $60,000 in its own vault,
and nine per cent, or $90,000, to its credit with a reserve
city bank. In the reserve city bank, however, the $90,000 is
merely a deposit against which it keeps an actual reserve of
about $20,000. When trouble comes, therefore, and the bank in
the non-reserve city decides to increase its cash reserves
from six to eight per cent it calls upon its reserve agent for
$20,000 cash, and when the reserve city bank has forwarded
that amount, it has parted with all the actual reserve it has
belonging to the non-reserve city bank, and it still has a
deposit liability on its books of $70,000 against which it
holds no reserve whatever.
"As it is a very natural and prudent thing for banks in
non-reserve cities to increase their cash reserves by at least
two per cent when trouble threatens, nearly all try to do so
at the same time, and the result is that the threatened
trouble becomes a reality. In short, when financial trouble
threatens in any other great country the system provides relief and the danger is avoided, whereas,
unfortunately, with us every step we take increases the
trouble and helps it along until it is beyond control.
"Financial stringency existed in all the leading countries in
1907. Suspension of specie-payments and actual panic occurred
only in the United States. They stopped abruptly at our
borders, and Canada and even Mexico knew nothing of them.
Manifestly, we need something! There is little difference of
opinion on that score. But when we begin to discuss the remedy
we have a wide divergence of views.
"Many favor asset or credit currency similar to that
prevailing in Canada. The Canadian System of asset currency is
excellent when joined to the branch banking system. But it is
felt that it would be almost impossible to apply it to a
system containing thousands of individual banks. The
difficulty is that of providing adequate redemption
facilities, without which the danger of currency inflation
could scarcely be avoided. Several schemes to meet this
difficulty have been suggested, but the best of them seem
rather unwieldy.
{270}
"The proposal which seems to be gaining most ground is to
establish a great semi-government bank to be added to our
present system. To this bank would be transferred at once the
government deposits now in national banks, and later a large
part of the reserves of the banks in the central reserve, and
possibly also the reserve cities. Like everything else, the
bank would have to be an evolution. Years would pass before it
would work into its proper position and exercise its full
powers. Gradually, it is hoped, the United States Treasury
could be done away with, and the government taken out of the
banking business. Then all government funds would be deposited
with the Central Bank. Its branches would take the place of
our Sub-Treasuries. It would be a bank of banks, where other
banks could re-discount their bills, or borrow on securities,
receiving therefor currency to be issued by the Central Bank.
This currency would be partly secured by a gold reserve, and
partly by the general assets of the bank.
"If the $900,000,000 gold in the United States Treasury in
1907, held against an equal amount of notes, had been in a
Central Bank it would have formed a sufficient basis for the
issue of an additional $900,000,000 of currency, for fifty per
cent reserve against currency would be ample. For such
additional issue the Central Bank would, of course, receive
acceptable banking assets. A far smaller amount, however, than
$900,000,000 would have averted the panic. It seems clear that
such an institution would provide the elasticity to our
currency which we so much need, not only in times of stress,
but every crop-moving season.
"There are many details which would require careful study, but
to many competent to judge, the Central Bank idea seems to be
the correct solution of the difficulty. The fact that all the
other important countries of the world have adopted it ought
to give it weight. Even little Switzerland came to it four
years ago, and Japan, after adopting a system copied from
ours, has established a Central Bank patterned after the
Imperial Bank of Germany.
"Most of the objections raised seem to be largely based on
sentiment rather than on argument. It is said to be
‘un-American,’ or that it would be ‘used by Wall Street.’ or
that ‘it would get into politics.’ It would seem to us that if
the system is the best, it should not be ‘un-American’ to
adopt it, and that an illegitimate use of it by ‘ Wall Street’
could easily be guarded against in its organization. To say
that we cannot trust our government to properly use, and not
abuse, the powers of a Central Bank is to say that it is
inferior to the governments of Europe which have wisely used
such powers for generations.
"There seems some danger that the bank would not pay unless it
entered into competition with existing banks for regular
commercial business; but we must remember that Central Banks
are not expected to earn large dividends.
"We predict a long campaign of discussion before the right
course appears clear to the American people; but it seems to
us that the arguments advanced for a Central Bank are well
worthy of the most earnest study."
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1909-1910.
Powerful Combination of Banking Interests by J. P. Morgan & Co.
Early in December, 1909, the powerful banking house of J. P.
Morgan & Co. obtained control of the Guaranty Trust Company
and the Equitable Life Assurance Company, which latter
controls the Equitable and Mercantile trust companies. In the
former case it purchased the holding of the Harriman estate,
and in the latter that of Thomas Ryan. At the beginning of the
following month, by another deal with Mr. Ryan, the same firm
acquired the Morton and the Fifth Avenue trust companies. The
combined assets of the Guaranty, Morton, and Fifth Avenue
trust companies were reported to be $259,000,000. Joined to
the vast resources of the Equitable Life Assurance Company and
to those previously controlled by the Morgan Company, the
financial combination seems overpowering.
FINANCE AND TRADE.
See,(in this Volume),
TARIFFS, AND COMBINATIONS.
----------FINANCE AND TRADE: End--------
FINLAND: A. D. 1901.
The Russianizing of the Finnish Army.
Resistance to the Violation of Constitutional Rights.
Despotic measures of the Tsar.
M. de Plehve’s defence.
The shameful overthrow, in 1899, by the present Tsar of
Russia, of the ancient constitution of Finland, which had
preserved its distinct nationality ever since it came, in
1809, under the Russian crown, is related in Volume VI. of
this work. Among the measures then undertaken for Russianizing
Finland—reducing it substantially to the status of a Russian
province—the most serious was the practical incorporation of
the Finnish army with the Russian, the law for accomplishing
which had not been fully carried through when the account of
events in Volume VI. was closed. It was opposed very
strenuously by M. Witte, then rising to influence in the
councils of the Tsar, and seemed not unlikely to be put aside.
But the worse influences prevailed in the end over the wiser,
and the proposed measure became law on the 11th of July, 1901.
It placed all Finnish troops under the orders of the Russian
commander in Finland, authorized the putting of Finnish
conscripts into the Russian regiments stationed in Finland,
and subjected Finnish regiments to service, when required,
outside of Finland, from which service they had been
constitutionally exempt hitherto.
The resistance to this gross violation of time-honored rights
was universal and determined. Conscripts refused to answer the
call to military service, subjecting themselves to the
penalties for desertion, and practically the whole population
stood ready to protect them. Extensive movements of emigration
to America and elsewhere were begun. At the same time the
Tsar’s authority, as the common sovereign of Finland and
Russia, was used in many ways as autocratically in his
constitutional realm as in that where his absolutism knew no
bounds. The powers of the Russian Governor-General of Finland
were enlarged; the Finnish archives were removed to St.
Petersburg; Cossacks were sent into the abused country with
their knouts to quell resistance to the army law; but the
resistance went on, taking presently a more passive form.
Communes refused to elect the conscription boards which the
law prescribed for carrying out the levy of recruits, and
heavy fines were imposed on them without effect. In November,
1902, a convention of delegates from all parts of Finland,
composed largely of peasants and workmen, resolved to
"continue everywhere, unswervingly, and until legal conditions
are restored to the country, the passive resistance against
all measures conflicting with, or calculated to abolish, our
fundamental laws."
{271}
An elaborate defence of these Russianizing measures in Finland
was addressed, in August, 1903, by the Russian Minister of the
Interior, M. dePlehve, to Mr. W. T. Stead, editor of the
English Review of Reviews, by way of reply to an "open
letter" to himself on the subject, by Mr. Stead, published in
the Review of that month. Concerning the military law,
M. Plehve wrote:
"This law, in its application to the new conscription
regulations, has alleviated the condition of the population of
Finland. Contrary to the information you have received, the
military burden laid on the population of the land has not
been increased by 5,000 recruits annually, but has been
decreased from 2,000 men to 500 per annum, and latterly to
280. As you will see, there is in reality no opposition
between the will of the Emperor of Russia as announced to
Finland in 1899 and his generous initiative at The Hague
Conference." At the end of a long exposition of the principles
of Russian imperial policy, which left it far from clear, the
Minister said: "I shall give the following answer to your
entreaty to put an end to the present policy of Russia in
Finland, which you are pleased to call the policy of General
Bobrikoff. First of all, it is incorrect to connect the
present course of Russian policy in Finland with the name of
the present Governor-General of Finland alone, for, as regards
the fundamental purpose of his labors, all the advisers and
servants of his Imperial Majesty who have to do with the
government of Finland are at one with him in their firm
conviction that the measures now applied in Finland are called
for by the pressing requirements of our state. With regard to
the essence of the question, I repeat that in matters of
government temporary phenomena should be distinguished from
permanent ones. The incidental expression of Russian policy,
necessitated by an open mutiny against the government in
Finland, will, undoubtedly, be replaced by the former favor of
the sovereign toward his Finnish subjects, as soon as peace is
finally restored and the current of social life in that
country assumes its normal course. Then, certainly, all
repressive measures will be repealed. But the realization of
the fundamental aim which the Russian Government has set
itself in Finland,—i. e., the confirming in that land of the
principle of imperial unity,—must continue, and it would be
best of all if this end were attained with the trustful
cooperation of local workers under the guidance of the
sovereign to whom Divine Providence has committed the
destinies of Russia and Finland."
FINLAND: A. D. 1904.
Assassination of Governor-General Bobrikoff.
On the 15th of June, 1904, Governor-General Bobrikoff, who had
been the executor of the Russianizing policy in Finland, and
was hated accordingly, was shot by a Finnish member of the
Parliamentary opposition.
FINLAND: A. D. 1905.
Successful Revolt against the Russianizing Oppressions.
The Tsar’s Concessions.
Restoration of Ancient Liberties.
Taking advantage of the situation in Russia, which tied the
hands of the Autocrat (see (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D.
1904-1905), the Finns, by a sudden general rising, drove out
the Russian officials in their country, took possession of the
military posts and Government building, and forced the
Governor, Prince John Obolenski, to send to the Tsar their
demand for a restoration of their ancient constitutional
rights which he had taken away (see, in Volume VI. of this
work, FINLAND: A. D. 1898-1901). The helplessness to which
their Russian master had been reduced was signified by the
prompt amiability of his response, in successive manifestoes,
the first of which bore the following command:
"By the grace of God, we, Nicholas II., etc., command the
opening at Helsingfors, December 20, of an extraordinary Diet
to consider the following questions.
"First.
The proposals for the budget of 1906-1907, provisional taxes,
and a loan for railway construction.
"Second.
A bill providing, by a new fundamental law, a parliament for
Finland on the basis of universal suffrage, with the
establishment of the responsibility of the local authorities
to the nation’s deputies.
"Third.
Bills granting liberty of the press, of meeting, and of
unions."
A subsequent manifesto announced:
"We have ordered the elaboration of bills reforming the
fundamental laws for submission to the deputies of the nation,
and we order the abrogation of the manifesto of February 15,
1899; the ukase of April 15, 1903, concerning measures for the
maintenance of public order and tranquillity; the imperial
ukase of November 23, 1903, according exceptional rights to
the gendarmerie in the grand duchy; Article 12 of the ukase of
July 13, 1902, on Finnish legislation; the ukase of September
21, 1902, on the reform of the Senate and the extension of
powers of governors; the ukase of April 8, 1903, on
instructions for the governor-general and the assistant
governor of Finland; the law of July 25, 1901, on military
service; the ukase of August 13, 1902, on the duties of civic
officials in Finland; the ukase of August 27, 1902, on the
resignation of administrative officials and judicial
responsibility for offenses and crimes of officials, and the
ukase of July 15, 1900, on meetings.
"We further order the Senate to proceed immediately with the
revision of the other regulations enumerated in the petition,
and we order the immediate suppression of the censorship.
"The Senate should prepare bills granting liberty of speech,
of the press, of meeting, and of union; a national assembly on
the basis of universal suffrage, and the responsibility of the
local authorities as soon as possible, in order that the Diet
may discuss them.
"We trust that the measures enumerated, being dictated by a
desire to benefit Finland, will strengthen the ties uniting
the Finnish nation to its sovereign."
An article quoted from a Danish magazine tells in a few words
how the bloodless revolution was accomplished:
"The weapon used for the purpose of paralyzing the government
was the general strike. It may be questioned to which class
belongs the chief part of honor in this struggle. A marvelous
unity characterized the whole movement. While post, telegraph,
and railroad traffic was stopped the entire light supply was
cut off. The strike extended even into the private kitchen,
and this was one of the reasons which hastened the departure
of the Russian officials. In the meantime the question was not
only should Russian guns be directed on Helsingfors, but also
should personal safety be maintained. That so few
transgressions of the law occurred with the whole police force
on strike is a splendid testimony for the Finnish people. The
revolution in Finland stands hence as an unparalleled example
of a popular upheaval."
{272}
FINLAND: A. D. 1906.
Political Enfranchisement of Women.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
FINLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.
Russian Measures for the Destruction of the
Constitutional Autonomy of Finland.
The reactionary determinations of the Russian Government,
since it mastered the revolutionary movements of 1905-1906, are
revealed in nothing else more plainly than in its steady
pursuance of measures to extinguish the degree of autonomy
which belongs to Finland, under the constitution that was
confirmed to its people by the Tsar Alexander I., after he had
taken their country from the Swedish crown.
See, in Volume IV. of this work,
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
One of the most arbitrary of the early measures in this
direction was the assumption by the Tsar, in June, 1908, of a
right to confer on the Russian Council of Ministers certain
powers of control over Finnish legislation. The protests of
the Diet and Senate of Finland against this and other attacks
on their constitutional rights led to a dissolution of the
Diet, and the election of a new representative body, early in
May, 1909. The election produced substantially the same
popular representation in the new Diet that had characterized
its predecessor, and its attitude toward the autocratic
invasion of Finnish rights was the same. The Socialists
received 79,447 votes. The party of the Old Finns which
inclines to submissiveness polled a total of 52,396. The
Constitutional parties, the Young Finns and the Swedes,
received respectively 28,711 and 15,885 votes, while the
Agrarian-Socialists got 13,648 and the Christian Workmen 6172.
The Old Finns stand alone against the other parties.
Meantime, the Tsar, in sanctioning an Act of the previous
Diet, after its dissolution, had done it in terms that were
deemed contrary to the Constitution of Finland, and the
Senate, which is composed of members appointed by the Tsar,
petitioned him for a modification of them. His reply was a
rebuke and a command that they promulgate the law, and thus
accept his misconstruction of the Constitution. Thereupon the
Vice-President of the Senate and four of its members resigned.
The remaining five, pliant to the imperial will, voted with
the presiding Governor-General for the promulgation of the
law.
In the course of the next few months other demands were made
on the Finns which even the imperial appointees of the Senate
could not yield to. In October, an Imperial rescript decreed
that military service legislation for Finland should be
withdrawn from the competence of the Finnish Diet and
transferred to the Imperial Legislature; and that until such
legislation is enacted Finland should pay into the Russian
exchequer an annual contribution of 10,000,000 marks
($2,000,000), to be increased gradually to 20,000.000 marks.
This left the Finnish Diet no voice in the appropriation. The
five members who had remained in the Senate when their four
colleagues resigned now intimated their intention to withdraw.
On the 14th of October the four vacant seats were filled by an
appointment of naval and military officers who were said to be
"technically Finnish citizens," but all of whom, save one, had
spent their lives in Russia. A month later, November 17, a
Press despatch from Helsingfors made the following
announcement: "At an all-night session which ended to-day the
Finnish Diet rejected the government bill providing for
Finland’s contribution to the Russian military appropriation.
A resolution was adopted requesting the Emperor to reintroduce
the measure in a constitutional form. The dissolution of the
Diet is expected. The Emperor has accepted the resignations of
the Finnish Senators who refused to remain in office if the
Russian demand for a big military appropriation by Finland was
pressed." The expectation of another dissolution of the Diet
by the Tsar, as the consequence of this action, was realized
the next day.
Some months prior to this time a joint committee of Russians
and Finns had been appointed to formulate rules or principles
that should apply with authority in future to legislation for
Finland. Agreement between the two constituents of this
Russo-Finnish committee appears to have been impossible from
the beginning. They were hopelessly opposed in their views of
the relation existing between the constitutional Grand Duchy
of Finland and the autocratic Empire of Russia, by virtue of
their having a common sovereign. Toward the end of November
their failure to come to any agreement was made known; and on
the 22d of December a despatch from St. Petersburg announced
that "the conclusion of the labours of the Russo-Finnish
Commission, resulting in a perfunctory majority vote of the
Russian members in favour of the reduction of the Finnish
Constitution to a provincial autonomy, is deplored by most of
the newspapers. The Finnish members apprehend a military
dictatorship."
The St. Petersburg correspondent of The Times had
previously stated what the prescription of the Russian
majority of the Committee would be. They maintain, he wrote,
that "there never was a Constitution granted to Finland
binding on Russia as the Sovereign Power, and that, therefore,
a new order of procedure can be established independently of
the Finnish authorities by an Act of legislation passed by the
Russian Legislature alone. They have drawn up a list of
matters to come under the new procedure. According to this
list all legislation on such matters as the Russian language
in Finland, the principles of Finnish administration, police,
administration of justice, public education, formation of
business companies and of associations, public meetings,
Press, importation of foreign literature, Customs tariffs,
literary and artistic copyright, monetary system, means of
communication, including pilot and lighthouse service, and
many other subjects, shall be enacted by the Imperial
legislative organs. The Finnish Diet shall be entirely ignored
in such matters, while there is a provision for some cases
that the opinion of the Finnish Senate shall be taken.
"It is difficult to understand what legislative matters are to
be left for the Finnish Diet to deal with; but it seems that
the Russian members are not sure that they have covered the
whole ground, for their project contains a clause to the
effect that additions to their list may be made by means of
Imperial legislation.
{273}
"It is proposed that Finland shall be represented in the
Russian Duma by five members, one of whom shall be elected by
Russian residents in Finland who are not Finnish citizens,
whilst the Finnish Diet shall send one member to the Council
of Empire."
The first movement, probably, on these new lines of imperial
government for Finland, was that reported in a Reuter message
from St. Petersburg, December 24, as follows:
"The Cabinet has approved new regulations whereby all
documents issued by the Chancellery of the Governor-General of
Finland shall be worded in Russian without a Finnish or
Swedish translation."
FINLAND: A. D. 1910.
Fresh Elections to the Finnish Diet.
The Russian Duma assuming authority over Finland.
A new Diet, chosen at elections held early in February, 1910,
is composed as follows:
Old Finns, 42;
Young Finns, 28;
Swedish People’s party, 26;
Social Democrats, 86;
Agrarians, 17;
Christian Labor party, 1.
Fifteen women were elected, nine of them by the Social
Democrats.
Just as this matter goes into type, a despatch from St.
Petersburg, March 30, 1910, announces the introduction of a
bill in the Russian Duma assuming authority in that body over
Finland.
FINSEN, Niels Ryberg.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
FIRE, Great calamities of.
See (in this Volume)
BALTIMORE;
CHICAGO;
NEW YORK CITY;
SAN FRANCISCO;
OSAKA.
FISCAL REFORM, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain’s programme of.
See (in this Volume)
England: A. D. 1903 (May-September).
FISCHER, Emil.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
FISHER, Andrew:
Prime Minister of Australia.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRALIA; A. D. 1908, and 1909 (MAY-JUNE).
FISHERIES:
Newfoundland.
See (in this Volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND.
FISHES, FOOD:
Convention for their Preservation and Propagation in the
Waters contiguous to the United States and Canada.
See (in this Volume)
FOOD FISHES.
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES:
End of their Autonomy.
See (in this Volume)
INDIANS, AMERICAN.
FLOODS.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA; A. D. 1906-1907, and
FRANCE: A. D. 1910.
FOLK, Joseph Wingate:
Prosecutor of Municipal Thievery and Corruption in St. Louis.
Governor of Missouri.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
FOOD FISHES:
Convention respecting their Protection, Preservation, and
Propagation in the Waters contiguous to the United States
and Canada.
The following are the articles of a Convention negotiated at
Washington and signed by Ambassador James Bryce, for the
Government of Great Britain, and by Secretary Elihu Root, for
that of the United States, on the 11th of April, 1908.
Ratifications of the Convention were exchanged on the 4th of
June:
"ARTICLE 1.
The times, seasons, and methods of fishing in the waters
contiguous to the United States and Canada as specified in
Article 4 of this Convention, and the nets, engines, gear,
apparatus, and appliances which may be used therein, shall be
fixed and determined by uniform and common international
regulations, restrictions, and provisions; and to that end the
High Contracting Parties agree to appoint, within three months
after this Convention is proclaimed, a Commission to be known
as the International Fisheries Commission, consisting of one
person named by each Government.
"ARTICLE 2.
It shall be the duty of this International Fisheries
Commission, within six months after being named, to prepare a
system of uniform and common International Regulations for the
protection and preservation of the food fishes in each of the
waters prescribed in Article 4 of this Convention, which
Regulations shall embrace close seasons, limitations as to the
character, size, and manner of use of nets, engines, gear,
apparatus, and other appliances; a uniform system of registry
by each Government in waters where required for the more
convenient regulation of commercial fishing by its own
citizens or subjects within its own territorial waters or any
part of such waters; an arrangement for concurrent measures
for the propagation of fish; and such other provisions and
measures as the Commission shall deem necessary.
"ARTICLE 3.
The two Governments engage to put into operation and to
enforce by legislation and executive action, with as little
delay as possible, the Regulations, restrictions, and
provisions with appropriate penalties for all breaches
thereof; and the date when they shall be put into operation
shall be fixed by the concurrent proclamations of the
President of the United States and the Governor-General of the
Dominion of Canada in Council.
"And it is further agreed that jurisdiction shall be exercised
by either Government, as well over citizens or subjects of
either party apprehended for violation of the Regulations in
any of its own waters to which said Regulations apply, as over
its own citizens or subjects found within its own jurisdiction
who shall have violated said Regulations within the waters of
the other party.
"ARTICLE 4.
It is agreed that the waters within which the aforementioned
Regulations are to be applied shall be as follows:
(1) The territorial waters of Passamaquoddy Bay;
(2) the St. John and St. Croix Rivers;
(3) Lake Memphremagog:
(4) Lake Champlain;
(5) the St. Lawrence River, where the said River constitutes
the International Boundary;
(6) Lake Ontario;
(7) the Niagara River;
(8) Lake Erie;
(9) the waters connecting Lake Erie and Lake Huron,
including Lake St. Clair;
(10) Lake Huron, excluding Georgian Bay but including
North Channel;
(11) St. Mary’s River and Lake Superior;
(12) Rainy River and Rainy Lake;
(13) Lake of the Woods;
(14) the Strait of San Juan de Fuca, those parts of
Washington Sound, the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound
lying between the parallels of 48° 10' and 49° 20';
(15) and such other contiguous waters as may be
recommended by the International Fisheries Commission and
approved by the two Governments.
It is agreed on the part of Great Britain that the Canadian
Government will protect by adequate regulations the food
fishes frequenting the Fraser River.
"The two Governments engage to have prepared as soon as
practicable charts of the waters described in this Article,
with the International Boundary Line indicated thereon; and to
establish such additional boundary monuments, buoys, and marks
as may be recommended by the Commission.
{274}
"ARTICLE 5.
The International Fisheries Commission shall continue in
existence so long as this Convention shall be in force, and
each Government shall have the power to fill, and shall fill
from time to time, any vacancy which may occur in its
representation on the Commission. Each Government shall pay
its own Commissioner, and any joint expenses shall be paid by
the two Governments in equal moieties.
"ARTICLE 6.
The Regulations, restrictions, and provisions provided for in
this Convention shall remain in force for a period of four
years from the date of their executive promulgation, and
thereafter until one year from the date when either the
Government of Great Britain or of the United States shall give
notice to the other of its desire for their revision; and
immediately upon such notice being given the Commission shall
proceed to make a revision thereof, which Revised Regulations,
if adopted and promulgated by the President of the United
States and the Governor-General of Canada in Council, shall
remain in force for another period of four years and
thereafter until one year from the date when a further notice
of revision is given as above provided in this Article. It
shall, however, be in the power of the two Governments, by
joint or concurrent action upon the recommendation of the
Commission, to make modifications at any time in the
Regulations.
"ARTICLE 7.
The present Convention shall be duly ratified by His Britannic
Majesty and by the President of the United States, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the
ratifications shall be exchanged in Washington as soon as
practicable."
FOOD LAWS.
See (in this Volume )
PUBLIC HEALTH: PURE FOOD LAWS.
FORESTS, Conservation of.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
FORMOSA:
Earthquake in.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: FORMOSA: A. D. 1906.
FORMOSA:
Japanese Dealing with the Opium Problem.
See (in this Volume)
OPIUM PROBLEM.
FORTIS MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1905-1906.
FOSTER, John W.:
On the American Violation of Treaties with China.
See (in this Volume )
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1908.
FOSTER, Volney W.:
Delegate to Second International Conference of
American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
FOUNDATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
----------FRANCE: Start--------
FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1905.
Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
FRANCE: A. D. 1896-1906.
Encroachments of the French Algerian Boundary on Morocco.
See Morocco: A. D. 1896-1906.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900.
Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink.
Its Increase.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902.
Purchase of Franchises and Property of the French Panama
Canal Company by the United States.
See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902.
Favored footing in Abyssinia.
Railway Projects.
See (in this Volume)
ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1902.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902.
French Central Africa.
Explorations.
A Land-locked Empire.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: FRENCH CENTRAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (April-October).
Elections to the Chamber of Deputies.
Resignation of Waldeck-Rousseau.
Formation of a Radical Ministry under M. Combes.
Enforcement of the Law of Associations.
Closing of unauthorized schools.
The first ballot in elections to the Chamber of Deputies was
cast on the 27th of April, producing 413 conclusive elections
and leaving 178 to be decided by a second vote. The new
Chamber met on the 1st of June, and elected for its president,
M. Leon Bourgeois, by a vote of 303 against 267. On the
following day M. Waldeck-Rousseau, who had been at the head of
the Ministry for three years—an exceptional term of
premiership in France—resigned, on the plea that his task was
done. A new Radical Cabinet was then formed by M. Émile
Combes, which announced a moderate programme on the 10th, and
received the declared support of 312 members, against 116 in
opposition and 149 who took neutral ground. Of the previous
Cabinet, M. Delcassé retained the portfolio of Foreign Affairs
and General Andre that of War. The session was short and
little was done.
In the following months great excitement and much disorder in
parts of the country, especially in Brittany, was caused by
proceedings taken to enforce the law concerning Associations,
passed in the previous year.
See in Volume VI.
FRANCE: A. D. 1901.
Some religious orders—teaching orders and others—had refused
or neglected to register themselves and obtain authorization,
as required by the law, and these were now to be closed. In
many cases there was resistance to the closing of the
unauthorized schools. In a few cases there was a refusal by
military officers to obey commands for the assistance of their
soldiery in enforcing the law. Magistrates, too, opposed the
government, and a majority of the councils in the departments
of France withheld their support. Nevertheless the government
proceeded firmly in the matter and the provisions of the law
were carried out. When the Chambers were reconvened in October
the burning subject came up for fierce discussion, and the
attitude and acts of the Combes Ministry were approved in the
Chamber of Deputies by 329 against 233.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (May).
Courtesies at the unveiling of a Monument to
Marshal de Rochambeau, at Washington.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902 (MAY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (October).
Strikes in the Coal Mines and on the Docks at Marseilles.
See (in this Volume)
Labor Organization:
FRANCE: A. D. 1902.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (October).
Treaty with Siam.
Acquisition of more territory.
See (in this Volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1902.
{275}
FRANCE: A. D. 1903.
Elections to the Senate.
Execution of the Associations Law.
Closing of Schools and Houses of the Religious Orders.
Resistance and Rioting encouraged by Magistrates.
State Monopoly of Education established.
Building new Schoolhouses.
Elections for a section of the Senate, occurring early in
January, 1903, went favorably for the Government. M. Fallières
was reëlected President of that body, while M. Bourgeois was
seated again in the presiding chair of the lower Chamber. The
Combes Ministry was strengthened in its hold of power by the
continued agitation that attended the execution of the
Associations Law as applied to the religious orders and
brotherhoods.
See in Volume VI. of this work,
FRANCE: A. D. 1901.
Its support was a shifting one, made up sometimes by one
combination of the many party divisions in the Chambers and
sometimes by another; but it did not fail throughout the year
to find somewhere a majority that would not allow a political
crisis to be brought on. Everywhere the closing of the schools
and houses of the unauthorized associations was resisted with
increasing determination, and the proceeding became too much
retarded to satisfy the supporters of the law. Objection was
raised to the separate dealing with questions of authorization
for this and that order or congregation, and the Government
was called upon to name at once to the Chambers the whole list
of institutions which it would have authorizations refused to.
In March this demand was acceded to, so far as concerned the
male congregations, and a great debate, of a fortnight’s
duration, in the Chamber of Deputies, resulted in the refusal
of authorization to all the teaching, preaching, and
contemplative orders, of Redemptorists, Capuchins,
Benedictines, Dominicans, and Passionists. A few months later
the same entire refusal of authorization to the teaching
orders of women was voted, but by a diminished majority.
The Clericals, on their side, were as energetic as the parties
of the Government, and were supported very generally by the
magistracy of the country at large, which dealt so leniently
with the resistance and rioting provoked by the enforcement of
the law that the Government was left practically dependent on
the army and the police. The army, too, was a doubtful
instrument of authority in many cases, numerous officers of
all grades resigning to escape the repugnant mandate of law.
The most threatening situation arose in Brittany, consequent
on the inauguration of a monument to Renan, which the
Catholics regarded as an insult to the Church.
One final step in the secularizing of education in France was
taken late in the year, by the passing of a bill which
practically established a State monopoly of education, by
repealing a law of 1850 that abolished such monopoly. By the
new law all members of any religious order, authorized or
unauthorized, were forbidden to engage in teaching.
The extent to which the schools of the religious congregations
were being closed involved a great expenditure for building
new schoolhouses, and the Government had difficulty in passing
an Act which laid the cost of this provision on the communes,
instead of accepting it for the state at large. It carried the
Act, however, notwithstanding the opposition of M.
Waldeck-Rousseau.
FRANCE: A. D. 1904.
Rivalry with England in the Persian Gulf.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1904.
FRANCE: A. D. 1904 (April).
The Agreements of the Entente Cordiale with England.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
FRANCE: A. D. 1904 (June-July).
Groundless charges against the Premier.
A great public scandal was raised in June by charges against
the Premier, M. Combes, that he had tried to force the
Chartreux monks to buy the right of remaining in France.
Investigation showed that bold swindlers had attempted to
obtain money from the monks on the pretence of being able to
buy such permission for them. As the result of the
investigation the President of the Council and his colleagues
were vindicated by an almost unanimous vote of the Chamber of
Deputies.
FRANCE: A. D. 1904-1909.
General Consequences in Europe of the Weakening of Russia in
the Russo-Japanese War.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1905.
Action with other Powers in forcing Financial Reforms in
Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
The Separation of Church and State.
Preceding Contentions.
Measures and Proceedings of the Separation,
as recounted by writers of each Party.
The separation of Church and State in France involved the
nullification of the Concordat, negotiated by Napoleon I. with
Pope Pius VII. in 1802, and of what are known as the Organic
Statutes, promulgated by the French Government at the same
time.
See (in Volume IV. of this work)
PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
The former was in the nature of a treaty; the latter was not.
The French Government claimed rights under both; the Roman
Church acknowledged no force in the Statutes that could be
binding on itself. This difference, which entered into much of
the controversy preceding the measures taken by the Government
to separate the State from the Church, is explained in the
first quotation below,—following which, two accounts are
given of some among those controversies, and of the
proceedings connected with the adoption and execution of the
Act of Separation,—one account written from the view-point of
the Government and the other from that of the Church:
"The Concordat consists of a preamble and seventeen statutes.
It is a reciprocal contract between the temporal and spiritual
powers, and is therefore at the same time State law and Church
law. The preamble states that the Catholic, Apostolic, and
Roman religion is that of the great majority of the French
people; it does not say that it is ‘the religion of France,’
as the Holy See would have wished, and consequently it does
not restore to the Catholic religion its former character of
being a State religion. After establishing a new distribution
of the French dioceses, it directs that the bishops shall be
‘nominated’ by the Government and ‘installed’ by the Pope. The
alienation of ecclesiastical property, effected by the
Revolution, is definitely sanctioned. In return the Government
undertakes, as had already been done by the Constituent
Assembly, to secure ‘a reasonable allowance to the bishops and
curés, whose dioceses and parishes will be included in the new
arrangement,’ and to take ‘measures to allow French Catholics
to make foundations in favour of churches if they wish.’
{276}
"As regards the Organic Statutes, promulgated at the same
time as the Concordat, 18th April, 1802, they proclaim that no
bull, pastoral letter, or writing of any kind from the Holy
See shall be published in France without the authority of the
Government; no council, general or special, shall be held
without this authority. There must be no other delegate from
Rome in France besides the Nuncio, the official representative
of the Sovereign Pontiff. Any infraction on the part of the
clergy of the provisions either of the Concordat or of French
law is referred to the Council of State, who must decide if
there has been any abuse. The Organic Statutes were equally
concerned with questions relating to discipline, doctrine, and
even dogma—which are purely spiritual questions. They
therefore not only upheld the Declaration of 1682 as a
declaration of the principles of the Gallican Church, but also
expected all the professors to teach it in the seminaries.
According to the Concordat, bishops had a right to appoint
curés; the Organic Statutes obliged them to obtain the
approval of the Government for their appointments.
"Although the Organic Statutes are, with the Concordat, part
of one and the same State law, they must not be considered to
be entirely on the same footing. The Concordat concluded
between the two powers binds them together; the Organic
Statutes, an exclusive product of the French Government, never
received the sanction of the Papal authority. They were, on
the contrary, a source of further quarrels with the Roman
Court. Even in our days, they frequently lead to conflict, the
representatives of the Church having refused, on various
occasions, to recognise the validity of decisions made in
virtue of these Statutes by the French Government."
Jules Legrand,
Church and State in France
(Contemporary Review, May, 1901).
FRANCE:
Measures and Proceedings of the Separation as recounted
by its Advocates.
"The action of the Republic in suppressing the religious
orders had produced strained relations between it and the
Vatican. This was intensified by the ‘nominavit nobis’
controversy. In the Bulls instituting some bishops whom the
President had nominated, and which had to have the sanction of
the Government before they could be published and be valid in
France, the Vatican had inserted the word ‘nobis,’ implying
that the President had merely nominated the bishop to the Pope
for appointment and that the appointment was really in the
hands of the Pope. The French Government, under the guidance
of M. Combes, the Premier and Minister of Public Worship,
insisted that this word must be removed before the bull was
sanctioned, and as both sides refused to yield no bishop was
instituted. Relations were still further strained by the visit
of the President to the King of Italy. … To visit the King was
to insult the Pope by disregarding the protest made by him
against the occupation of Rome. President Loubet was the first
Roman Catholic ruler who ventured to disregard the feelings
and protests of the Pope. From the 24th to the 28th April,
1904, M. Loubet was the guest of King Victor Emmanuel, and
gave no intimation to the Pope of his intention to visit Rome,
and did not include a visit to the Vatican in his programme.
On the 28th of April, Cardinal Merry del Val sent to the
representatives of the Curia at the Courts of all the Roman
Catholic powers in the world, to be communicated to the
Governments to which they were commissioned, a protest against
the action of the French Government. … The French Government
replied by recalling its ambassador from the Vatican and
breaking off diplomatic relations with the Pope.
"In the summer of the same year the friction between the
French Government and the Vatican was increased by the cases
of the bishops of Laval and Dijon. Bishop Geay of Laval, in
his opening discourse in his cathedral, had proclaimed his
adherence to the Republic and his desire to be the shepherd of
all his flock. He denounced Orleanism and refused to support
reactionaries at the elections. … He was summoned to appear at
Rome. He submitted the summons to the Government, as he was
required by the Organic Articles to do, and he was refused
permission to leave his diocese. Subsequently, under threats
of excommunication, he went, and was immediately informed by
the Minister of Public Worship that his salary was stopped
from the day he left his diocese without permission. A similar
summons to Mgr. Le Nordez, Bishop of Dijon, led to similar
results. …
"In the month of October, 1904, M. Combes, replying to several
interpellations addressed to the Government, reviewed the
history of the relations of the Vatican to the Republic since
its foundation in 1870, and showed that there had been a
continuous disregard of the Concordat and of the Organic
Articles by the Vatican, and that clericalism had been the
most inveterate enemy of the Republic. He showed that no
stipulations could safeguard the rights of the State, which
were denied by the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The
confidence of the Chamber was expressed by a vote of 548 to
88. In November he introduced a Bill for the separation of
Church and State, which was referred to a Commission, by which
it was adopted on the 2nd December. In the middle of January,
1905, M. Combes, owing to resentment at certain incidents in
connection with the administration of the army, carried a vote
of confidence by a majority of only ten votes and resigned.
Before the end of the month a new Cabinet under the presidency
of M. Rouvier, retaining several members of M. Combes’
administration, was formed, which asserted its determination
to carry out the policy of its predecessor in its relations
with the Vatican. The Chamber of Deputies referred to a new
Commission all the Bills dealing with the question of Church
and State which had been presented to it, including that of M.
Combes. Instead of adopting any one of them, the Commission
decided to draft its own Bill, and shortly afterwards
presented to the Chamber a Bill which engaged the close
attention of the deputies for several months in the spring and
summer of the year 1905. It passed through the Chamber on the
3rd of July, and was sent to the Senate the following day. …
The Senate made no alterations in the Bill, and it became law
on the 6th of December, 1905."
John A. Bain,
The New Reformation, chapter 17
(T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1900).
{277}
"The law of the 9th of December, 1905, which put an end to the
regime of the Concordat and substituted that of separation
between Church and State, had been promulgated on the 11th of

December, 1905. It was to come into effect a year after its
promulgation. The Protestants and the Israelites had accepted
it even before it was passed; but they represented an
infinitesimal minority, and it was not that minority that the
legislators had had in view when they framed the law of
separation. The one question in the matter was that of the
attitude that would be taken by the Catholics,—the counsels
that would come to them from Rome.
"In the French Episcopate there were two opposing currents of
opinion, one for acceptance of the law, under certain
reserves, the other for resistance. In the latter part of
November, 1905, some bishops met in Paris and agreed that
energetic efforts must be made to prevent action at Rome on
misinformation as to the situation of the Church in France and
the state of mind prevailing in it. Monseigneur Fulbert Petit,
Archbishop of Besançon, was their chosen envoy, and in the
following January he repaired to Rome. There he met other
bishops who had come to give counsels to the Pope that were
not pacific; and he met, also, the Père Le Doré, former
superior of the dissolved congregation of the Eudistes, well
known for his uncompromising opinions and his aggressive
temper, but who had been commissioned to convey to Rome the
proceedings of the meeting of French cardinals at Paris, on
the 28th of December, which showed a majority in favor of the
acceptance of the law. At the same time, an important meeting
of bishops was held at Albi, under the presidency of Monsignor
Mignot, the majority at which meeting, notably the Archbishop
who received them and the Archbishop of Toulouse, Monsignor
Germain, made no secret of their desire to adjust themselves
to the law, according to the expression of Cardinal Lecot.
"But nothing said or done drew the Pope from the silence which
he kept. Then it was rumored that the head of the Church would
reserve his decision until a general assembly of the French
episcopate, which the French cardinals had advised, could be
held, to propose a solution of the question. This, however,
was contradicted positively by the party which urged
resistance to the law.
"Such was the situation when the Government, obliged to
act,—since the period of delay fixed by the law was only a
year,—came to the first proceedings which the Act prescribed.
Article 43 of the law provided for administrative rules, of
which the part relating to inventories appeared logically the
first, that being the operation which needed consideration
before all others. The second part of the regulations had to
do with the life pensions and temporary provisions accorded to
the ministers of religion. The regulation concerning pensions
and provisions was published in the Journal Official of
January 20, 1906. [Article 11 of the Act assigned to priests
or ministers of more than sixty years of age, who had been not
less than thirty years in an ecclesiastical service salaried
by the state, a yearly life pension of three-fourths of their
former stipend. To those under sixty years of age and above
forty-five, whose service had been for less than thirty years
but not less than twenty, it assigned one-half of their
previous compensation.] …
"The first executive act imposed on the Government was the
inventorying of the property, movable and fixed, belonging to
the State, to the departments or to the communes, of which the
establishments of public worship had had the use. Article 3 of
the law required this to be proceeded with immediately after
its promulgation. This article had been voted in the Chamber
and in the Senate by very large majorities, and, so to speak,
without discussion, so rational and judicial it seemed to be.
In fact, as the existence of the public establishments of
worship came to an end with the regime of the Concordat, the
succession to them was left open, and an inventory,
descriptive and estimative, of their property, was a necessary
measure preliminary to any devolution of such property,
dependent on that succession. … Being one of those
conservative measures which attack no right and leave a
continuous state of things, there was no expectation of much
feeling about it among Catholics. … Apparently, the consistent
attitude on the part of Catholics, provisionally, at least,
and until the Pope had spoken, would be one of calm, of
prudence, of expectancy. Such was the purport of the
instructions given by the bishops, even by the most combative.
These latter, while condemning the law with vehemence, did not
counsel a recourse to force against the agents appointed to
make the inventory. They required but one thing of their
priests and of the administrators of parish property, which
was that they should not coöperate in the work, and that they
should make declaration that their non-resistance did not
imply acceptance of the law.
"On the 29th of December, 1905, a first decree for regulating
the procedure was issued by the Council of State. This was
followed by a circular from the Minister of Finance which, it
must be confessed, roused a justifiable feeling among the
Catholics. From one phrase in that circular it could be
understood that the officials making the inventory were
authorized to demand the opening of the tabernacles. M.
Groussau questioned the Minister on the subject, and M. Merlou
cleared away all misunderstanding by replying that officials
were to accept the declaration of the curé of a church as to
the contents of its tabernacle; and that they had been
instructed to avoid everything that could give pain to pious
minds. The Abbé Gayraud recognized that these decisions of the
Government were in conformity with the instructions of the
Cardinal Archbishop of Paris, and the interpellation was
withdrawn.
"The inventories were begun at once after this decision of the
question of the tabernacles. At first there was no disorder.
The bishops, notably those of Toulouse, of Rouen, of Albi, of
Besançon, of Arras and Chartres, and their curés, from their
example, confined themselves to the reading of a protestation
to the receiver of the registration, after which the receiver
was left free to fulfil his mission. But soon, in some
dioceses, particularly in Paris, in the West, and in one part
of the Center, the inventorying was made the pretext for
demonstrations more political than religious, organized by
enthusiasts or by political cliques. Generally the clergy were
passively present at these demonstrations. …
{278}
These tumultuous manifestations, at the head of which the most
conspicuous personalities of the reactionary opposition were
often seen, ended by degenerating into veritable riots,
necessitating the intervention of troops, and leading finally
to bloody conflicts."
René Wallier,
Le Vingtième Siècle Politique, Annee 1906,
pages 123-132.
It was not until the 17th of February that the silence of the
Pope on the matters that were agitating France and the Papal
Church was broken. Then the "Encyclical Vehementer," so named,
according to custom, from its first word, was published.
FRANCE:
Measures and proceedings of the separation as recounted
by opponents.
"In the first period of his premiership M. Combes was not
prepared either to denounce the Concordat or to separate the
churches from the State, simply because he found public
opinion not yet ripe for either measure. Later he thought he
saw in adopting this course a means of prolonging his official
existence, a matter of considerable importance to a country
doctor like himself without large private resources. Having
slaughtered nearly all religious congregations or prepared
their ultimate extinction, Combes appeared to seek no further
occupation for himself and to fortify his position by
attacking the Church itself, whose secular clergy he had so
recently praised and sought to protect from unfair and ‘unjust
concurrence or competition with the regulars!’ Like
Waldeck-Rousseau, Combes saw here an opportunity to ‘save’ the
Republic from ‘clerical reaction.' Throughout its whole
discreditable history this third Republic of France has only
been kept alive by being periodically ‘saved’ by some clever
politician from ‘perils’ conjured up to terrorize the
peasantry, who still recall the misery of their ancestors in
the old régime and the misfortunes of France in the
downfall of the first and second Empires. … The Pope
protested, in March, 1904, against the bad faith and infamous
aggressions of the French Government in the matter of
religious education and those imparting it, and M. Delcassé,
through the French Ambassador at the Vatican, protested
against the Papal protest. In the following month M. Loubet,
as President of the French Republic, visited the King of Italy
at Rome, at the same time politely, but significantly,
ignoring the existence of the Pope and the Vatican, at which
court France then had accredited an Ambassador! Then followed
the protest of the Vatican, addressed directly to the French
Government, and the protest simultaneously sent to all the
powers where Papal Nuncios are in residence. …
"In March, 1904, had arisen the trouble in the Diocese of
Dijon, France, which culminated in students of the diocesan
seminary refusing to receive ordination from the hands of the
Bishop, Monsignor Le Nordez. The Bishop of Dijon was,
unfortunately, not the only one of the French episcopate
claiming to be a ‘victim of hatred, deceit and calumny.’
Almost from the commencement of his episcopate Monsignor Geay,
Bishop of Laval, was attacked by accusations filed at Rome,
charges which were examined into during the Pontificate of Leo
XIII., and which led the Holy Office to advise the Bishop to
resign his see. It was then (in 1900) thought at Rome that in
the local conditions actually then existing it was impossible
for Monsignor Geay to govern the diocese with the necessary
authority and efficacy. Monsignor Geay agreed to resign,
provided he received another bishopric in France. This
condition appeared unacceptable to the Vatican, but no further
action was taken in this case until May 17, 1904, when by
order of Pius X. the request for the Bishop’s resignation was
renewed, and in case it was not forthcoming within a specified
time an ecclesiastical trial was intimated as inevitable.
Notwithstanding the secret and private character of this last
letter emanating from the Holy Office, Monsignor Geay
communicated its contents to the French Government. Combes and
Delcassé, jealous of the prerogatives of the French State and
presumably caring little for the honor of the French
episcopate, notified Cardinal Merry del Val (by the acting
Charge d’ Affaires) ‘that if the letter of May 17 is not
annulled the government will be led to take the measures that
a like derogation of the compact which binds France and the
Holy See admits of.’ The Papal Nuncio at Paris explained to M.
Delcassé that this was not a threat of deposition of the
Bishop without a decision of the French Government, but an
invitation to the Bishop to meet the charges by a voluntary
resignation.
"As regards Monsignor Le Nordez and Monsignor Geay,
respectively Bishops of Dijon and Laval, their long hesitation
between the wishes of the French Government and the will of
the Holy See ended by the departure of both of them for Rome.
The government then promptly suppressed their salaries and
after they had (under virtual pressure) placed their
‘voluntary resignation’ in the hands of the Holy Father, an
allowance from the funds of the Vatican was made to each of
them. They have since lived in France in a retirement, varied
at first by interviews of Monsignor Geay with reporters that
have since happily ceased. The severance of diplomatic
relations with the Vatican was completed by a note from M.
Delcassé to the Papal Nuncio at Paris stating that in
consequence of the rupture of diplomatic relations between
France and the Vatican ‘the mission of the Nuncio would
henceforth be deprived of scope.’ In the parliamentary session
of November 26, 1904, the credit for the Embassy at the
Vatican was stricken from the budget. …
"After the downfall of Combes, through the odium attaching to
his spy system, the Minister of the Interior and of Public
Worship presented to the Chamber of Deputies on behalf of the
Rouvier Ministry a project of law to establish the separation.
If for Combes separation had signified little else than
spoliation, aggravated by oppression, the Rouvier plan sought
to render spoliation less unjust, less intolerant. The
ministerial project having been somewhat altered by the
commission, conferences were held and a final agreement having
been obtained, the proposed law was reported to the Chamber of
Deputies in March, 1905. It is unnecessary to follow the
parliamentary evolution of this immature project, forced as an
issue by two successive Premiers who had far less solicitude
for the permanent interests of their country than to assure
their own continuance in power. M. Briand, speaking for the
commission, took great trouble to throw upon the Pope the
responsibility of a law which he at the same time declared to
be perfectly good, beneficent for the Republic and honorable
for its authors! Alas! for separatists, in an unguarded moment
Combes betrayed the utter falsity and ridiculous insincerity
of this pompous and solemn pretence of the anti-religious
majority, that the Pope forced the separation upon France. In
the parliamentary session of January 14, 1905, Combes
declared: ‘When I assumed power I judged that public opinion
was insufficiently prepared for this reform. I have judged it
to be necessary to lead it to that.’
{279}
"When the law of separation, as finally adopted in the Chamber
of Deputies, was referred to the Senate, the Senatorial
commission, under ministerial pressure, adopted the law as
passed in the Chamber, without change of a single word.
Although the law was the most important of any passed in
France for a hundred years, and though it is fraught with
grave influences upon the destinies of the country, this
hastily matured, ill-framed measure, with all its unjust and
vexatious provisions, was swallowed whole by a commission of
cowardly, truckling Senatorial politicians, who disregarded
their plain duty at the dictation of Radicals and Socialists
on the outside. Separationists both in and out of Parliament
were eager to see the law become operative before the
universal suffrage of France could have an opportunity of
passing judgment upon the principle of the separation in the
parliamentary elections of May, 1906. …
"In the Papal Consistory of December 11, 1905, the Pope
pronounced an allocution protesting against the law of
separation in mild and temperate language, announcing his
intention of again treating upon the same subject ‘more
solemnly and more deliberately at an opportune time.’ The Holy
Father evidently waited for the regulations of public
administration that would indicate in what manner the
Government of France intended to administer and enforce the
law. …
"Immediately after the adoption of the law of separation the
government appointed a special commission to elaborate rules
of public administration by which the law was to be
interpreted and applied. This commission being stuffed with
the anti-religious element, its work was worthy of its
authors. … The first details of the regulations officially
promulgated governed the taking of inventories of all movable
and real property of churches, chapels and ecclesiastical
buildings, including rectories, chapter houses, homes of
retreat for aged and infirm priests (even pension endowments),
etc., ostensibly to facilitate the transfer of these
properties to such associations for the maintenance of public
worship as might be formed under the provisions of the law of
separation. These inventories were imposed upon all religious
bodies—Catholic, Protestant and Jewish—and the law was made
applicable to Algiers, where there is a large Mahomedan
population. Viewed in the abstract, the taking of inventories
was a formality necessary to an application of principles
inscribed in the law. As estimates of value such inventories
are worthless, because compiled by agents of the
administration of Public Domains or treasury agents, unaided
by experts in art, architecture and archivial paleography. The
Director General of the Register prescribed to agents taking
these inventories a request for the opening of tabernacles in
churches and chapels to facilitate completeness and accuracy.
This order aroused a storm of indignation throughout France
and the government realized that a stupid blunder had been
made, and it was announced that agents would content
themselves with gathering and incorporating into their report
declarations of the priests upon the nature and value of
sacred vessels contained in the tabernacles.
"The taking of inventories of churches and their contents
commenced simultaneously in many parts of France in the latter
part of January, 1906. Instead of the simple formality hastily
accomplished without general observation, of which separatists
had dreamed, this proceeding was characterized in various
places by scenes of the wildest disorder. When officials of
the Registry presented themselves for the taking of the
inventories, the clergy, surrounded or attended by trustees of
the building, read formal protests against what most of them
styled ‘the first step in an act of spoliation.’ … If these
protests had not been accompanied by physical violence, the
country might have been spared the shocking scenes that took
place in Paris and the provinces. In many churches free fights
took place between militant Catholic laymen, opposed to an
inventory, and police, firemen and troops, who burst open the
doors of churches or broke them down with fire axes in order
to make an inventory possible. While at the doors chairs and
fragments of broken confessionals were flying through the
air, pious women within sang:
‘We will pray God that the Church may be able to teach the
truth, to combat error which causes division, to preach to all
charity!’"
F. W. Parsons,
Separation of Church and State in France
(American Catholic Quarterly Review, July, 1906).
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
The Morocco Question.
Sudden hostility of Germany to the Anglo-French Agreement.
Demand for an International Conference.
The Conference at Algeciras.
The resulting Act.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
Claims against Venezuela.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
President Fallières succeeds Loubet.
Fall of the Rouvier Ministry.
Rise of M. Clemenceau.
The Elections of May.
Conformity to the Separation Law prohibited by the Pope.
Sequestration of Church Property.
The Socialists and the Bourgeois.
Justice at last to Dreyfus.
Honors to Picquart.
The presidential term of M. Loubet, who had been elected on
the 19th of February, 1899, would expire on the 18th of
February, 1906. M. Loubet declined a reflection, and M.
Fallières, the chosen candidate of the various groups of
Republicans, was elected President of the French Republic at a
joint session of the two chambers of the National Assembly, on
the 17th of January, by 449 votes of a total 848. The new
President was inducted into office on the 18th of February,
and, according to usage, was offered the resignations of the
existing Ministry, under M. Rouvier, which, however, he did
not accept. M. Rouvier and his colleagues continued in office
until the 7th of March, when a vote in the Chamber of Deputies
which expressed want of confidence compelled a resignation
that could not be declined.
{280}
The new Ministry then formed, and announced on the 14th, was
nominally presided over by M. Sarrien, President of the
Council and Minister of Justice, but its real chief was known
to be M. Clemenceau, Minister of the Interior. Other important
members of this Cabinet were M. Bourgeois, Minister of Foreign
Affairs, and M. Aristide Briand, Minister of Public
Instruction and of Worship. Sarrien and Bourgeois were classed
politically as Radicals, Briand as a Socialist, and Clemenceau
as a Socialist-Radical. The Ministerial declaration read in
both chambers on the 14th was criticised as colorless, and as
indicating an incongruity of political material in the make-up
of the administration. On the burning question of the
execution of the law for the separation of Church and State
its language was:
"The law on the separation of Church and State has met, in the
execution of the provisions relating to the inventories, a
resistance as unexpected as it is unjustified. There is no one
among us who wishes to assail in any manner whatever the
freedom of religious belief and worship. The law will be
applied in the same liberal spirit in which it was adopted by
the Parliament. … But it is our duty to insure the execution
of all laws throughout the land. Under a republican government
the law is the highest expression of national sovereignty; it
must everywhere be respected and everywhere obeyed. The
Government intends to apply with all necessary circumspection,
but with inflexible firmness, the new legislation which
certain parties of opposition strive vainly to misrepresent."
On the 14th of April the Chamber of Deputies was adjourned
sine die, and fresh elections to it were to be held in
May. "The seventh legislature held under the Constitution of
1875 came to an end amid a domestic confusion unparalleled in
France since 1871. In the Nord and the Pas de Calais there
were miners’ strikes, at Clermont-Ferrand strikes in the
building trade; at Lorient and Toulon there was a general
strike, and there were strikes also at Alais and Bordeaux. At
Paris the compositors, the excavators and the railway men on
the Metropolitan had left work, and the postmen also had
joined the movement, though they were servants of the State.
M. Clemenceau paid two visits to Lens to treat with the
strikers; following his example and by his orders the
magistrates, officers and soldiers exhibited admirable
coolness as well as energy in controlling the excited crowds
without resorting to force. … Attempts were made to form what
were virtually revolutionary governments, and these announced
openly that on May 1, capitalism would be assailed, a general
strike proclaimed in Paris, and the Government swept away if
it showed signs of attempting to interfere. These threats set
up an unprecedented panic, which was intensified by the
measures taken by the Government to get rid of it. Troops
guarded the Metropolitan Railway workshops, the printing
establishments, the bakeries. All the cavalry and infantry
available were concentrated at Paris, and schools and empty
houses taken up for their accommodation."
Annual Register, 1906,
page 270.
In the midst of these distractions the political canvass for a
new representation of the Republic in its legislature was
carried on, and the elections were but slightly disturbed.
They went so sweepingly in favor of the Government that only
176 seats in the Chamber, out of 589, were carried by the
opposition. The victory of the Government was more complete
and decisive than the most sanguine had expected. Said a
writer in The Fortnightly Review:
"It is the end of the long struggle between the Republic and
its internal enemies, those Emigres de l’intérieur as M. Paul
Sabatier has happily called them. The political power of the
Church is broken forever; the parties of reaction are finally
crushed, and their future will be that of the Jacobites after
Culloden. … It may perhaps be useful to record the relative
strength of parties in the new Chamber as compared with the
old. Precise accuracy is difficult, owing to the uncertainty
as to the exact group to which a few of the deputies should be
attributed, but the following figures are as near exactitude
as possible:—
New Chamber. Old Chamber.
Ministerialists: (The Bloc):--
Republicans of the Left
(Alliance Démocratique
and Gauche Démocratique) 90 83
Radicals 117 98
Radical-Socialists 132 119
Independent Socialists 20 14
Total 359 314
Unified Socialists 54 41
Opposition:—
Republicans of the Centre
(Union Républicaine and Progressists) 68 97
Nationalists 30 53
Conservatives and Clericals 78 84
Total 176 234
"But the mere figures do not bring out the full significance
of the election. Even more important than the fact that only
108 Clerical and Nationalist deputies were returned is the
fact that these 108 represent, with very few exceptions, the
most ignorant and backward districts in France. Immediately
after the election the Matin published an electoral map
of France, in which the districts represented by Opposition
deputies were left white. It is an instructive document. The
whole of central France is a solid mass of black, in the north
and south the white spots are few and scattered, in the east
black very greatly predominates; only in the west is there any
conspicuous show of white."
Robert Dell,
France, England, and Mr. Bodley
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1906).
Manifestly the majority in France approved the severance of
religious institutions from the political organization of the
State. In recognition of the fact, the General Assembly of
French Bishops, sitting soon afterwards at Paris, petitioned
the Pope, by the vote of a large majority, to permit the
forming of Public Worship Associations under the Separation
Law. The papal reply, given late in the summer, was a new
Encyclical, formally forbidding French Catholics to form such
Associations for taking the offered use of the church
buildings and property, as provided for continued exercises of
religion by the law. A little later the prohibition was
carried farther, and French Catholics were forbidden to
conform to the Associations Law of 1891, as well as to the
Separation Law.
{281}
There seems to have been a disposition in the Government to
extend, from one year to two, the period allowed for
conformity to the latter enactment; but this attitude on the
part of the head of the Church dispelled it. Accordingly, on
the 11th of December, 1906, when the term fixed by the law
expired, sequestration of the property of the vestries was
pronounced, and buildings occupied in connection with the
churches by bishops, rectors, seminaries, etc., were ordered
to be vacated with no further delay.
Before matters reached this stage M. Sarrien had resigned, on
account of ill health, and the premiership had passed to
Clemenceau. The Cabinet underwent a degree of reconstruction
soon afterwards, and the upright, courageous Picquart,
formerly Colonel, now Brigadier-General, who had stood so long
almost alone in army circles as a champion of justice to the
foully wronged Dreyfus, had been given the portfolio of War.
See, in Volume VI. of this work,
FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899)
To Dreyfus himself the Republic had made all the reparation
that it could. On the 12th of July in this year its highest
court had pronounced a decision which branded with falsity and
forgery every document and the whole testimony on which he had
been convicted, and declared that "the accusation against
Dreyfus was completely unjustified." Thereupon he was
reinstated in the army with the rank of major, and not many
days later, on the spot where the ceremony of his degradation
had been performed, in 1894, he received the insignia of a
Chevalier of the Legion of Honor.
In the May elections for the Chamber of Deputies the
Socialists had been heavily reinforced, and their most
strenuous leader, M. Jaurès, was inspired to say in his
journal, L'Humanité:
"There is no more time to be lost. This time we must give the
finishing blow to the Reaction, to all parties of the past, to
Clericalism and Cæsarism. After clearing the battleground of
all its litter, the Proletariat must be able to say to the
face of the Republican Democracy, the Radical Democracy which
at last is master of public power: ‘What are you going to do
for workmen? What reforms, what guarantees, are you going to
give them? How are you going to help French society out of the
deep crisis in which it struggles? How, by what organization
of Property and Labor, will you put an end to the exploiting
of men, to the war of classes let loose by the Capitalist form
of property?’" Quoting these words, soon afterwards, a writer
in The Atlantic Monthly remarked:
"Such words are not the mere rhetoric of a Parliamentary
dictator who has just suffered a year’s eclipse in the
retrograde combinations given to the Radical majority by Prime
Minister Rouvier. Almost physiologically, certainly socially,
the millions of French workmen stand over against
property-holders in a way to which there is nothing comparable
in the Northern and Western United States, with all their
labor difficulties. They form a separate class in society,
because French property-holders form an exclusive caste. It
was the middle classes, the property-holding bourgeois and the
peasant proprietors bound up with them, who profited by the
great Revolution against the privileged classes of that
day,—royalty, clergy, and nobles. During the century which has
elapsed the triumphant bourgeois have steadily persisted in
throwing around themselves a practically impenetrable wall of
legal and social privilege in their turn. And now there is a
spontaneous upheaval of the excluded, unprivileged, inferior
class."
Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1906).
Mainly, it appears, from the prompting and the influence of
the Socialist and Labor organizations, France obtained, in
1906, a law making Sunday a day of rest from most descriptions
of industry and commerce, exceptions being made to allow
travel and transportation companies, lighting and water works,
newspaper offices, and some other performers of public
services, to continue their operations, while hotels,
restaurants, wine shops, drug stores, and the like, were
exempted from closing their doors.
See (in this Volume)
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
Woman Suffrage Movement.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
The Thrift and consequent loanable Wealth of the country.
The power that it makes for peace.
"In the world at large, however, France has also come to a
consciousness of her real power. An English financier had
already said that if the French people continue to live on the
principle, ‘where you have four sous spend only two,’ they
will end by having in their possession all the coined gold in
the world. The great portion of it which they already possess,
and the distress caused to German finance and industry by the
patriotic refusal of the united French banks to allow their
gold to be drawn until peace was secure, had a great and
probably decisive influence in the happy termination of this
entangled affair of Morocco. The floating of the latest
Russian loan has since come to show yet further the riches of
France, to which tourists alone, it is estimated, add two
billion francs in gold each year. This money power and money
need should tend to the keeping of European peace more than
all the theories of the pacifists who clamor for a disarmament
impossible to obtain."
Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1906).
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
Deposition of the insane King of Anam.
See (in this Volume)
ANAM.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906 (February).
The Papal Encyclical "Vehementer Nos."
See PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (February).
FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.
The Separation of Church and State.
Further measures and proceedings, as related from opposite
standpoints.
From the Separationist Standpoint:
"The practical question, what course the French Catholics were
to adopt when the law should go into effect, was first
answered by the pope in his encyclical Gravissimo, published
August 10, 1906, eight months after the promulgation of the
law. The gist of the document is in two sentences: ‘After
having condemned as was our duty this iniquitous law, we
examined with the greatest care whether the articles of the
aforesaid law would leave at least some means of organizing
religious life in France so as to rescue the sacred principles
upon which rests the Holy Church.’ Having consulted the
bishops, and addressed 'fervent prayers to the Father of
Light,’ the pope came to the following conclusion:
‘As for the associations of worship, as the law organizes
them, we decree that they can absolutely not be formed without
violating the sacred rights which are the very life of the
church.’
{282}
"Is there any other form of association which might be both
legal and canonical? Pius X did not see any. Therefore, as
long as the law remained as it was, the Holy Father forbade
the French Catholics to try any form of association which did
not promise, in an ‘unmistakable and legal manner, that the
divine constitution of the church, the immutable rights of the
Roman pontiff and the bishops, as well as their authority over
the property necessary to the church, especially over the
sacred edifices, will be forever insured in those
associations.’ …
"For this decision there were, from the ecclesiastical point
of view, three grounds. One was the failure of the law of 1905
to recognize, in so many words, the authority of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Another was the abrupt fashion in
which the French government broke off its diplomatic relations
with the Vatican. The fact that the government consistently
ignored the pope during the drafting of the bill was a third.
…
"Under what regime the churches were to live was at first
somewhat uncertain; but M. Briand speedily discovered in
existing legislation all that was needed to insure the
continuance of religious worship. He was willing to admit that
the church was not obliged to avail herself of the privileges
that the new law provided for her. Law imposes duties on
citizens, but it does not force them to make use of rights or
privileges. Everything that is not forbidden is lawful. … The
minister stated that the priests could make use of the
churches after having filed such an application or declaration
as is required for ordinary meetings by the law of 1881. These
declarations would be valid for a whole year instead of for
one meeting. But under this regime the priests would be simply
temporary occupants of the buildings of worship without any
legal title.
"This compromise proved no more satisfactory to the Vatican
than the law of 1905. …
"The pope refused to sanction this arrangement. He objected to
the scheme of yearly declaration. In the first place he
complained that this broad interpretation of the law on public
meetings was merely a personal fancy of M. Briand which might
not bind his successors. In the second place, the dignity of
the priests did not allow them to accept the humiliating
position of simple occupants of the churches. …
"The government, however, could not leave several million
Catholics in a position in which opportunity to perform their
religious duties depended upon uncertain texts and the
circulars of a temporary minister of worship. It therefore set
out to draft a bill that would be acceptable to the church
without any recourse to the discarded associations of worship.
The new bill was submitted to Parliament December 15, 1906;
was accepted by the Chamber December 21 and by the Senate
December 29, and was promulgated January 2, 1907. …
"Most of the privileges granted in the law of 1905 are
withdrawn; and the law of associations of 1901, combined with
the law of public meetings of 1881, forms the basis of the new
regime. …
"Of all the catastrophes prophesied or feared by foes or
friends none has occurred. The new regime so violently
attacked in and out of France is being gradually acclimated."
Othon Guerlac,
The Separation of Church and State in France
Political Science Quarterly, June, 1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.
The Separation of Church and State.
Further measures and proceedings, as related from opposite
standpoints.
From the Standpoint of the Church:
"The third meeting of the French episcopate, held at the
Château de la Muette, Paris, January 15-19, resulted in a
declaration (approved by the Holy See) of their unanimous
consent to essay the organization of public worship in
churches to be placed at the Bishops’ disposal free; an
essential condition being a legal contract (authorized by
Government) between themselves or their clergy and the
Prefects or Mayors to whom such churches (sequestrated in
December) have been handed or will be handed over; the
contract to be for a term of eighteen years, during which term
(being fixed by the common law of municipal leases of communal
properties) neither Mayors nor Prefects shall in any way
interfere either in parochial administration or in regard to
the conditions of occupancy of the edifices, which must be, as
regards police, under control of the priest in charge, the
mayor intervening only on grave occasions when his official
duties require him according to law to re-establish disturbed
order.
"This document, published on January 29, was immediately, with
a form of contract, sent by each Bishop to the Parish priests
in his diocese with a request to be informed immediately
whether the proposed contract would be entered into by their
respective mayors, and instructing them if possible to get it
signed at once and return it to the Bishop. Of course, from
every parish where Catholics are strong and zealous the signed
contracts were quickly obtainable or obtained. But so soon as
the Minister of Worship learned these proceedings, he
circularized the Prefects of France on February 1:
"‘You will shortly receive instructions concerning the
application of the Article in the Law of January 2, 1907,
providing that free use of Communal buildings intended for
worship, and of their fittings, may, subject to the
requirements of Article 13 in the Law of 9 December, 1905, be
accorded by an administration act of the mayors to the
ministers of worship specified in declarations of
worship-meetings. It is extremely urgent, to prevent mayors
being entrapped into giving their signatures, that you should
telegraphically warn them, they are not entitled to enter into
a contract of this kind without preliminary deliberation by
their municipal council, and that they should, pending the
vote of that body, confine themselves, if asked for it, to
giving an acknowledgment of receipt of any request for use of
edifices they may have received. You will also assure them
they shall at a very early date receive instructions defining
the conditions to be observed to render such contracts valid,
and will direct them to do nothing until those instructions
reach them.’
"It is due to M. Briand to acknowledge: first, that he lost no
time whatever in fulfilling this promise; second, that his new
circular on the application of the law of January 2, 1907,
which bears date Paris, February 3rd, and was published the
following evening, lays down regulations concerning the leases
of Churches and Communal Chapels which on the face of these
are fair, reasonable, and likely to be universally acceptable.
{283}
The main conditions are, approval of the agreements by the
municipal councils, failing which mayors cannot enter into
them; maximum term to be eighteen years; the lessee (whether a
curé, or a worship association) to keep the buildings in
proper repair; leases for longer periods than eighteen years
to be sanctioned by the prefect; that the curé acts by
permission of his ecclesiastical superior may be stated in the
lease, but such superior is not to be entitled in any way,
once the document is signed, to interfere, or exercise
authority. …
"In Paris the appearance of the circular was hailed with
satisfaction by Catholics and reasonable men. … Cardinal
Richard deems it proper and useful to direct his priests to
make the declaration, after the contract is duly signed, and
when His Eminence shall authorize them to make it. …
"His Eminence lost no time in submitting to the Protestant
prefect of the Seine, M. de Selves, a draft lease of the Paris
Cathedral (Notre Dame) and the historical St. Denis Basilica.
It was understood that, if settled and signed, this contract
should serve as the model to be followed in the remaining
eighty-five French dioceses. The Cardinal Secretary of State
at the Vatican authorized these negotiations, against his
personal judgment, without any illusions as to the result,
simply to satisfy the French episcopate and a minority in the
Sacred College. …
"After negotiations extending over three weeks, the Prefect
informed the Cardinal (in writing, on February 23) that His
Eminence’s proposals were inacceptable, but the government
invited amended ones based on ministerial declarations made in
the Chamber during a stormy debate on February 19, when M.
Briand found himself forced to confess the churches were left
open in view of the truth that a parliamentary majority had
‘no right to hinder millions of Catholic compatriots from
practising their religion.’ The Cardinal Archbishop replied
immediately that the text of the draft submitted embodied the
extreme limits of possible concessions."
J. F. Boyd,
The French Ecclesiastical Revolution
(American Catholic Quarterly Review, January-April, 1907).
FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Effects of the Separation Law.
The Catholics of France lose all Legal Organization.
"The Church Separation Law has failed to do the particular
work for which it was voted by the preceding Parliament.
Catholic citizens have chosen to undergo its penalties, with
new pains and reprisals voted by the present Parliament,
rather than accept that civil reorganization of their religion
which it imposed on them. The result has been to deprive
French Catholics, not only of the church property which had
been restored to them after the confiscations of the
Revolution, but also of all church property of whatever kind,
even such as had since been gathered together by their private
and voluntary contributions. It is impossible to foresee how
they are legally to constitute new church property for
themselves. By the automatic working of separation, Catholics,
so far as any corporative action might be intended, are left
quite outside their country’s laws.
"The Associations Law had previously suppressed their
religious orders and congregations, that is, all those
teaching and other communities which combined individual
initiatives into a working power for their religion. In virtue
of that law, their convents and colleges and the other
properties of such religious associations have ‘reverted’ to
the State, which is gradually liquidating them for its own
purposes.
"No example of temporal sacrifices for religion’s sake on such
a scale has been seen since Catholics in the France of the
Revolution chose to lose all, in many cases life itself,
rather than accept the schismatical civil constitution of
their clergy, which was accompanied by a like nationalizing of
all their church property."
Stoddard Dewey,
The Year in France
(Atlantic Monthly, August, 1907).
FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Rapid Development of the Syndicalist Labor Union Movement.
The Confederation Generate du Travail.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
Popular Vote on the Greatest Frenchman of the
Nineteenth Century, awarding the distinction to Louis Pasteur.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (May-July).
The revolt of the Wine-growers of the Midi.
From various causes, the wine-growers of Southern France have
suffered from an increasing decline in the market for their
products. They attributed this wholly to the extensive
manufacture of adulterated and counterfeited wines, though it
came partly, without doubt, from the increasing use of beers
and spirituous liquors among the French. The struggling
cultivators of the grape, who could hardly obtain a living
from their vineyards, accused the government of neglect to
make and enforce effective laws for the suppression of the
adulterating frauds. They demanded new measures for the
suppression of all vinous beverages that were not the pure
product of the grape. In the spring of 1907 their attitude
became seriously threatening; for a leader named Marcelin
Albert, having an eloquent tongue, a bold spirit, and a
capacity for command, had risen among them. Alarming
demonstrations of popular excitement occurred in the cities of
Perpignan, Montpellier, Narbonne, and others.
Then, in May, the discontented people gave formal notice that
they would refuse to pay taxes if all adulterate wine-making
was not summarily stopped by the 10th of June. At the
appointed time the threat was even more than made good, for
most of the municipal officers in the four departments of
Gard, Aude, Hérault, and the Pyrenees Orientales resigned and
the machinery of local government was dissolved. The
troublesome situation thus created was handled ably by Premier
Clemenceau. On one hand he secured new legislation from
Parliament against wine adulteration, while promptly ordering
troops to the region of revolt on the other. Marcelin Albert
and another leader, Dr. Ferroul, Mayor of Narbonne, were
arrested, and order was soon restored, though a few collisions
with turbulent crowds were attended with some loss of life.
The new laws enacted for the occasion were intended in part to
secure an annual record of the vineyard product of the country
that would enable the Government to keep knowledge of it from
the vine to the wine cask, and make fraudulent tampering with
it more difficult, at least.
{284}
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (September).
Convention with Great Britain concerning Commercial Relations
with Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with Great Britain, Germany, Norway, and Russia,
guaranteeing the integrity of Norway.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with England concerning Death Duties.
See (in this Volume)
DEATH DUTIES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907-1909.
Operation in Morocco.
Bombardment of Casablanca.
Fresh irritation of Germany.
Arbitration of the Casablanca incident.
Dethronement of Sultan Abd el Aziz by his brother, Mulai Hafid.
Franco-German Agreement.
See (in this Volume)
Morocco: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic Agreements.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908.
The Situation of the Catholic Church since the Separation
of Church and State.
A Church Organization impossible.
"To question whether the Catholics in France, who have alone
done more than the Catholics in any other nation for foreign
missions and for the propagation of the faith, will succeed in
maintaining the Church in their own country by private
contributions, will perhaps arouse astonishment. Nevertheless
it may be questioned. We do not doubt the generosity of our
people, but that which does give us concern is the
impossibility of organizing any revenue which can be
permanent. … The Church would be able to surmount the
difficulty if she had endowments, revenues, or property, as in
other countries. But that of course demands some regular
organization, some corporation or some body recognized by the
laws of the country and capable of acquiring, possessing, and
exercising ordinary property rights. We cannot state too
emphatically that such an organization for the Church is not
possible to-day in France. On one side the only body
authorized by the law to look after the material side of the
religious interests is the association cultuelle, or
local committee of public worship, as defined and regulated by
the Law of Separation. On the other side, this association
cultuelle has been declared by the Pope incompatible with
the hierarchical constitution of the Church of Rome, and the
bishops, the priests, and the Catholic laity, in obedience to
their Supreme Head, have abstained and will continue to
abstain from forming any such organization. Not only, then,
have there been no Catholic associations cultuelles to
receive from the state the portion of the former religious
property (the half perhaps) which we might have kept; but
there will be none in the future to receive a gift of any
kind. In the eyes of the law there is no diocese, no parish,
no corporation representing diocese or parish. The bishop and
the pastor are only individual citizens, Messrs. So-and-So.
They cannot hold property except as individuals, and what they
might receive for religious purposes cannot be handed down to
their successors,—it must revert only to their legal heirs. In
brief, no permanent body whatever can provide for the
maintenance of public worship.
"This is the situation with its almost insurmountable
difficulties. In all probability it will be a long time before
we escape from it."
Felix Klein,
The Present Difficulties of the Church in France
(Fortnightly Review, April, 1908).
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with England, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and
Sweden, for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (June).
Treaty with Japan, adjusting interests of each country
in the East.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1907 (JUNE).
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (June).
Purchase of the Western Railway.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908-1909.
Operations in and around Morocco.
French Mauritanie.
Pushing French lines toward the West.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attitude on the question of the Austrian Annexation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
Socialism and the Socialist Parties.
The classes appealed to.
The leaders and the followers.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
A late awakening to the need of better Technical
and Industrial Training.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
Coöperative Organization in Agriculture.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (January).
Elections to one-third of the French Senate.
Success of the Socialist-Radicals.
Endorsement of the Clemenceau Ministry.
Elections to the one-third of the French Senate which goes out
every third year were held on Sunday, the 3d of January, and
resulted heavily in favor of the party which calls itself
Socialist-Radical, holding a middle ground between the extreme
Socialists and the Moderate Republicans. M. Clemenceau, the
Premier, is of this party, and his administration had given it
great strength. He was one of the Senators whose term had
expired, and his constituents of the Var re-elected him by a

majority of 390, 46 more than they had formerly given him. Of
the 103 Senators chosen at this election the
Socialist-Radicals and Radicals (who work together) won 60,
giving them secure control of the Senate, where the Moderate
Republicans had been holding the balance of power. The latter
lost eighteen seats, while the Conservatives or Reactionists
of the Right added 1 to the 4 they had previously held. The
strength in France of a politically and practically restrained
sympathy with the economic ideas of Socialism was proved
signally in this election.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (January).
Amended Convention with Great Britain concerning Commercial
Relations with Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March).
Appointment of Abbé Loisy to the Professorship of the
History of Religions in the College of France.
Early in March, 1909, the Abbé Loisy, most conspicuous of the
"Modernists" who had been condemned and denounced by the Pope,
was appointed by the Minister of Public Instruction to be
Professor of the History of Religions in the College de
France, filling the chair vacated by the death of M. Réville.
The appointment had been recommended by the authorities of the
College, which is reputed to be an institution entirely
devoted to "disinterested scientific research." Nevertheless,
the choice was looked upon at once as being prompted by a
motive of offensive antagonism to the Papacy.
{285}
The Abbé has had distinction for years among the masters of
the higher criticism, and five of his books were placed on the
"Index" by the church in 1903. The propositions characterized
as "Modernism" and condemned by the Pope in 1907 were largely
drawn from his writings. The Abbé replied to the condemnation,
and was excommunicated.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March-May).
Serious strike of Government employés in the Telegraph and
Postal Service.
Overcome by the firmness of the Government.
Disciplinary proceedings.
Court decision against Trade Unions among
employés of the State.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (MARCH-MAY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March-June).
Report of Parliamentary Commission on the Naval Administration.
Alarming conditions.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (April).
Reported reanimation of Clerical Anti-Republicanism.
"I learn on excellent authority," said an English
correspondent of the Press, writing from Paris in April, "that
the leaders of anti-clericalism in the French political world
are becoming somewhat concerned as to the rapid recrudescence
of the political religious orders, which, although suppressed,
are somehow managing to reestablish themselves in France. As
was recently pointed out by M. André Mater, in a Volume, ‘La
Politique Religieuse de la République Française,’ published
under the auspices of the ‘Committee for the defence abroad of
the religious policy of France,’ the French monks, and not the
French Bishops and priests, were almost entirely responsible
for the Vatican’s refusal to accept the three Separation Laws
which M. Briand, the then Minister of Public Worship, framed
in a conciliatory spirit towards the Roman Catholic Church,
and often with the assistance of the French Bishops
themselves. The French Government will certainly not allow the
religious orders to revive the old campaign of
anti-Republicanism, which has, in the opinion of many French
Roman Catholics, done so much to compromise the interests of
Roman Catholicism in this country."
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (June).
Earthquake on the Mediterranean coast.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (June-July).
Revised Naval Programme.
Changes in the Department of the Marine.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
Discussion of the Navy Report in the Chamber of Deputies.
M. Clemenceau’s outbreak of passion.
His flings at M. Delcassé resented by the Chamber.
He is driven from office by its vote.
His Successor, M. Briand, and the New Cabinet.
A Socialist Statesman at the head of the Government.
When the report of the Parliamentary Commission on the Navy
and the Naval Administration came up for discussion in the
Chamber of Deputies, in July, it brought about the overthrow
of Prime Minister Clemenceau and his Cabinet in a singular
way.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
The report itself had not been seriously threatening to the
stability of the Ministry. Responsibility for the weaknesses
found in the Naval administration belonged evidently, in large
measure, to the predecessors of M. Clemenceau and his
colleagues, and they were united in maintaining that M.
Picard, who held the Marine portfolio, had done all that could
be done since he came to office towards reforming his
department. M. Picard himself spoke with an aggressive
boldness of self-justification in the debate. His speech, made
on the 20th of July, called out M. Delcassé, president of the
investigating Commission, who mounted the tribune and
delivered an attack on the Government, fierce with the
animosities of a long antagonism between M. Clemenceau and
himself. This angered the Premier to a degree, apparently,
which overpowered his usually clear judgment, and he retorted
in a speech which taunted M. Delcassé with references to that
Morocco affair in which he and France were subjected to
mortifications at the hands of Germany.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906).
It is a matter on which sore feeling exists naturally in
France, and concerning which the sympathy of the nation is
with M. Delcassé. Hence the Chamber resented Clemenceau’s
allusions to it, and Delcassé was cheered when he made a
passionate but dignified reply. The Premier would have needed
to be blind if he did not see that his own party was against
him in the tone he had given to the controversy; and yet he
proceeded to a repetition of the taunt he had flung at his
opponent before. What followed was thus described to the
readers of the London Times the next morning, by its
Paris correspondent:
"M. Clemenceau rose in face of a hostile Chamber, which had
been profoundly impressed by M. Delcassé, although on entering
the Palais Bourbon before the debate this afternoon not a
single member of the House had contemplated the possibility of
a division which would entail the fall of the Ministry and
expose all parties to the necessity of readjustments of
electoral arrangements under a new and untried Cabinet within
less than a year of the general election. M. Clemenceau said:—
"‘M. Delcassé has taken a great deal of trouble not to reply
to the only question which I put to him—namely, you were
Minister and you followed a policy which was bound to carry us
to one of the greatest humiliations.’
"It seemed, as one gazed down upon the House, that the entire
Chamber leapt as one man in indignant repudiation of this
sentence, which, moreover, had been truncated by this
spontaneous and concerted interruption. When the noise of the
slamming desks had died down, M. Clemenceau was heard to say:
"‘Oh, a truce to false indignation, I beg of you. You led us,
M. Delcassé, within a hair’s breadth of war and you did
nothing to prepare for any such policy by taking military
precautions. Everybody is aware that the Ministers of War and
of Marine were questioned, and that they declared that we were
not ready. (Loud protests.) I have not humiliated France, M.
Delcassé humiliated her.’
"As M. Clemenceau returned to his place, there could be no
doubt as to the temper of the House. A division was
immediately announced on an order of the day of confidence,
proposed by M. Jourde and accepted by the Government.
{286}
"The vote took place on priority in favour of this order of
the day amid the liveliest agitation. By 212 votes to 176
priority was rejected. As soon as the President had read out
the figures, M. Clemenceau and the Ministers rose, and leaving
the Government Bench filed out into the lobbies. Loud cheers
from the Right and the Extreme Left followed them to the door.
It was the fall of the Ministry which has enjoyed the longest
lease of life of any under the Third Republic.
"After holding a consultation at the Palais Bourbon, the Prime
Minister and his colleagues immediately proceeded to the
Elysee in order formally to tender their resignation.
President Fallières, who was at dinner and who had not heard
the result of the vote in the Chamber, was taken by surprise
and expressed regret at the departure of M. Clemenceau, with
whom he had collaborated so long. The short interview, which
lasted only ten minutes, concluded with a formal request on
the part of the President that M. Clemenceau and his
colleagues would continue to discharge the duties of their
respective Departments until the appointment of their
successors."
Though his colleagues went out of office with him, it was M.
Clemenceau, alone, who could be said to have "fallen." Even
that characterization of the occurrence was criticised by one
of his opponents, who said: "M. Clemenceau did not fall; he
plunged out of office." "The Chamber had no intention of
upsetting the Government," said one of the Republican journals
of Paris, "and an hour earlier, in fact, had loudly cheered
the Minister of Marine, M. Picard." In these circumstances it
was certain that the change of Ministry would make little
change in the character or policy of the Government. It did,
in fact, make no extensive change in even the personnel of the
Ministry; for six members of the Cabinet of M. Clemenceau
reappeared in its successor, and these included the new
Premier, M. Aristide Briand.
The choice of M. Briand for leadership in the Government
appears to have been made by a common consensus of opinion
that he was the one man pointed to by all the circumstances of
the case. As Minister of Public Worship he had shown a
temperateness of disposition and a political capacity, in
steering the country through the stormy achievement of the
separation of the State from the Church, which won high
admiration and esteem both at home and abroad. He had been
known as distinctly a Socialist, according to the full meaning
of the term in France, and had come into public life with the
prejudices raised against that brand of radicalism to contend
with. But he had given good proof that he could be practically
a statesman as well as theoretically a Socialist, and France
appeared to be fully willing to see the helm of Government put
into his hands. He is the first fully professed Socialist to
attain that position in a great State. In making up his
Cabinet he called into it two others of his own Socialist
sect, namely, M. Millerand, to be Minister of Public Works,
Posts, and Telegraphs, and M. Viviani to be Minister of Labor,
as he had been before. For himself he retained the Ministry of
Public Worship, and, with it, the Ministry of the Interior. Of
other important departments of the Government, that of Foreign
Affairs was reassumed by M. Pichon and that of Public
Instruction by M. Domergue. General Brun became Minister of
War and Admiral Boué de Lapcyrère, Minister of Marine. The
Cabinet appears to have been generally recognized as one of
exceptional strength.
On the 27th of July the new Premier spoke as such to the
Chamber of Deputies for the first time, and did so, it was
manifest, with impressive effect. "If I deemed my person to be
an element of discord in the Republican party," he said, "I
should ask you not to follow me. I could not suppose that
serious men would come to ask me to sort out, as it were, from
my old ideas those which experience has confirmed within me
and those which it has made me discard. If I had been base
enough to do that, my interpellators would be right if they
refused me their confidence. I come before you just as I am, a
man whom you all know. I have been working with you of the
majority for the last seven years. You know that I am not
afraid of ideas, and that my way of thinking is daring. The
Republic seems to me to be the germ of all progress, but I
admit only such ideas as are feasible. Je suis un homme de
réalisation. Those who have watched me know that full
well. If there be among you any who are still ignorant of
these facts, let them vote against me. I have as yet no
mandate from you. Tonight I may have one, but at present there
is still time for you to refuse to invest me with one."
At the close of the Premier’s address a motion of confidence
was made, and carried by 306 votes against 46.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
French Deputies to lose pay when not in attendance
at the Chamber.
Voting by proxy is permitted in the French Chamber of
Deputies, and this encourages absenteeism. To correct that
result a remarkable rule was adopted by the Chamber at its
session of July 17. "The Socialist Deputy for the Cher, M.
Berton, aided by the Socialist Radical M. Dumont, induced the
House to adopt, by 441 votes to 77, a measure in virtue of
which ‘any Deputy who shall not have signed during six
consecutive sittings a certificate of attendance shall be
regarded as being absent without permission’ and deprived of
his pay. M. Pelletan, ex-Minister of Marine, who is, with men
like M. Brisson, President of the Chamber, the type of the old
Parliamentary hand of the Republican régime, protested
in vain against a conception of Parliamentary work which, as
he said, humiliated the representatives of France to the
position of schoolboys who have to be ruled with a rod of iron
lest they play truant. M. Brisson himself pointed out that the
proposal of the Socialist Deputies was seriously wanting in
respect for the national sovereignty, and he reminded his
colleagues that mere attendance in the Chamber was by no means
the only, nor necessarily the most effective, way of doing
one’s duty as Deputy.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July).
The Pensioning of State Railway Employés.
The Pending Workman’s Pension Bill.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY: ITS PROBLEMS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (October).
Abrogation of Commercial Agreements with the United States.
See (in this Volume)
TARIFFS: UNITED STATES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (October).
Clerical attack on the Secular or Neutral Schools.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
{287}
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (November).
Contemplated Reform in Criminal Court Procedure.
See (in this Volume)
LAW AND ITS COURTS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1910.
Destructive Floods in France, most seriously
in and around Paris.
Many parts of France suffered heavily from extraordinary
floods in the later half of January and the early days of
February, 1910; but Paris had the worst of the calamity to
bear. In its long history the city has been cruelly dealt with
many times by the waters of the Seine, which its quays and
bridges constrict and obstruct; but this latest experience
proved nearly the climax. It was comparable, at least, with a
historic flood that dates back to 1615. Large districts were
uninhabitable for days; half the streets and squares of the
city were under water: foundations of many of the grandest
buildings were being sapped, while sewers, subways, and
pavements were extensively destroyed. It was not until the
beginning of February that any subsidence of the waters
occurred, and far into the month before much restoration of
conditions could be taken in hand. The suffering meantime was
very great and the pecuniary damage immense.
----------FRANCE: End--------
FRANCO, JOÃO:
His drastic Government of Portugal.
See (in this Volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
FREDERICK VIII.:
Succession to the Crown of Denmark.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1906.
FREE CHURCH, of Scotland.
See (in this Volume)
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1904-1905.
FREE ZONE, Mexican:
Its abolition.
For an account of the Free Zone:
See Volume VI. of this work,
MEXICAN FREE ZONE.
It went out of existence in 1905.
See (in this Volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1904-1905.
FRIEDJUNG CASE, The.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
FRIARS’ LANDS, Governmental purchase of the.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902-1903.
FRY, Sir Edward.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: England: A. D. 1907-1909.
FULLER, Sir Bampfylde, Resignation of.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1905-1909.
FULTON CELEBRATION.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.
FURNESS, Sir Christopher:
His plan of Profit-sharing with Workmen.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: PROFIT-SHARING.
G.
GAELIC LEAGUE.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907.
GAGE, Lyman J.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905.
GALSTER, Vice-Admiral:
Argument for Submarines against "Dreadnoughts."
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
GALVESTON PLAN OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
DES MOINES PLAN OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: GALVESTON.
GAMBLING:
Its suppression in Siam.
See (in this Volume)
SIAM: A. D. 1905.
GAMBLING: Race-track:
Legislation for its Suppression in the State of New York.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1908.
GAMBLING:
Legislation for its Suppression in Louisiana and
the District of Columbia.
In June, 1908, Louisiana followed the example of New York in
passing an Act for the suppression of race-track gambling.
There, as in New York, only exactly enough votes to pass the
bill were secured; one Senator was present for the final vote
in spite of illness which subjected him to the most serious
inconvenience, and one Senator had to be sought by messenger
with a motor-car and brought by an all-night ride ninety miles
through the Louisiana marshes. Within a few months past the
gamblers of the race track had been similarly placed under the
ban of the law in the District of Columbia.
GAMBLING:
Its Suppression in Japan.
The following was reported from Tokio, March 27, 1909:
"A tremendous effort has been made by the race-track element
in Japan to induce the government to retract and permit
betting upon the tracks, but Marquis Katsura, the premier, has
stood firm, and, for another year, at least, the race tracks
of the Empire will be without their favorite Pari Mutuel or
any other form of betting. This means in Japan practically an
end of horse-racing, and necessarily a heavy loss to the
stockholders in the various race tracks. The development of
racing in Japan was extremely rapid. From a single course
established at Yokohama by foreigners, at least half a dozen
tracks were in full swing when gambling was prohibited. So
flagrant were the cases of fraud and so numerous the examples
of ruin brought about by reckless betting that the government
suddenly put its foot down upon the whole thing."
GAMBLING:
Stock, and other Speculative Dealing.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
GAPON, Father George.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
GARCIA, Lugardo:
Deposed President of Ecuador.
See (in this Volume)
ECUADOR.
GARFIELD, HARRY A.: President of Williams College.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Commissioner of Corporations and Secretary of the Interior.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1909.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Investigation of the "Beef Trust," so-called.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.:
Investigation of the Standard Oil Company, and Report.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
GASOLINE ENGINE.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION.
GATUN DAM.
See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909.
GAUNA, JUAN:
Revolutionary President of Paraguay.
See (in this Volume)
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.
GAUTSCH, BARON.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
{288}
GAYNOR, WILLIAM J.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D). 1909.
GEAY, Bishop.
See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.
"GENERAL SLOCUM," Burning of the.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1904.
GEORGE, David Lloyd.
See (in this Volume)
LLOYD-GEORGE, DAVID.
GEORGE V., KING OF GREAT BRITAIN:
His accession to the Throne.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (MAY).
GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
GEORGEI POBIEDONOSETS, MUTINY ON THE.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1908.
Abolition of the Convict Lease System.
See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1908.
Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1909.
Railroad Strike.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1909.
GERMAN EAST AFRICA:
Its parts suitable for European Settlement.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA.
GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: GERMAN COLONIES.
----------GERMANY: Start--------
GERMANY:
Industrial Combinations, called Cartels.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: IN GERMANY.
GERMANY:
Matters relating to the Use of Alcoholic Liquors.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
GERMANY:
State and Municipal Dealings with the
Problems of Poverty and Unemployment.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1905.
Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898-1904.
Rise of Commercial Universities.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1898-1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900.
Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (December).
Claims and Complaints against Venezuela communicated to the
United States.
The Reply.
Interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA A. D. 1901.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901-1902.
Industrial Crisis and succeeding Depression.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (March-May).
Measures for Germanizing the Polish Provinces of Prussia.
For many years past the Prussian Government had been exerting
itself to dilute the Polish population of its Polish
provinces, by settling German colonists in them and by buying
land from Polish owners. It now assumed a more aggressive
attitude of hostility toward that portion of its subjects, as
appeared from the temper of a speech by Count Bülow in the
Prussian legislature, in January of this year, on what he
characterized as "the most important concern of Prussian
politics at the present time." German property, be said "was
steadily passing into Polish hands," and "Polish lawyers,
Polish doctors, Polish contractors, were united in the attempt
to thrust the German element into the background." In support
of the Count’s position it was averred by others in the debate
that not only was Eastern Prussia being made Polish by the
rise of a vigorous Polish middle class, but that the Poles
already formed 10 per cent of the whole population of Prussia,
and were spreading in other parts of the Empire, holding
themselves generally apart from their German neighbors and
cultivating a national patriotism of their own.
In March the Prussian Government issued orders forbidding the
admission of immigrants from Russian Poland into Prussia
unless they brought not less than 400 marks of money in hand.
Two months later a bill was brought forward appropriating
250,000,000 marks for the purchasing of land in the Polish
provinces and for settling German colonists upon it. In
connection with this measure it was reported that, since the
buying of land for these purposes began, in Posen, the Poles
had acquired more from Germans than Germans had acquired
from Poles, to the extent of 76,611 acres. Hence more money
must be put into the game if it was to be played with effect.
The money was voted, though opposition to the policy which
makes enemies of the Poles, instead of Germanizing them by
friendly treatment, made a show of much strength.
"It was in 1886 that the Iron Chancellor started the fight
against the Poles by the expulsion of more than 50,000 Polish
labourers, natives of Austria and Russia. This measure not
only hit the poor people who were driven away, it also and
principally was directed against the Polish owners of large
landed estates in the Eastern provinces, who thereafter
experienced great difficulty in obtaining the necessary number
of farm-hands. This artificial scarcity of labour, together
with the great decrease in price of agricultural products
which had just taken place, entirely ruined many owners of
large estates, and there were therefore a great number who
wanted to sell. Bismarck then appointed a Committee of
Colonisation to buy Polish estates and parcel them out to
German peasant farmers. The necessary funds were provided for
by a sum of 100,000,000 marks (equal to £5,000,000) which was
placed at the disposal of the Committee.
"At the first moment the Poles were paralysed. What were they
to do to ward off such an attack aimed at the poorest among
them? But they kept up a good heart and did the only
reasonable thing: some wealthy Polish noble men furnished a
sum of 3,000,000 marks (equal to £150,000) whereby to fight
the mighty Prussian Government, with its Committee of
Colonisation and well-nigh inexhaustible financial resources.
With this capital of 3,000,000 marks a Polish land bank was
started for the purpose of buying estates and reselling them
in small holdings to Polish colonists. …
{289}
"It maybe guessed from what is already stated that the Poles
have not only been able to maintain their former hold on the
land, but actually as peaceable conquerors are marching
triumphantly westwards. This is also the case, but we need not
restrict ourselves to a guess, the ‘Statisches Jahrbueh für
den Preussischen Staat’ for 1903 containing ample
corroboration of it. According to this official handbook there
were parcelled out in the years 1896 to 1901, in the Provinces
of Posen and West Prussia, 7,828 estates by German activity,
containing 617,200 hectares, and 9,079 estates by Polish
activity, containing 213,700 hectares. Although the Germans
have parcelled out a very considerably larger area, the Poles
have bought and parcelled out a far greater number of
properties. The advantage thus obtained is put into an even
stronger light when we learn that during the same period by
this parcelling out there have been created only 15,941 German
farms, with an area of 155,200 hectares, as against 22,289
Polish farms, with an area of 95,800 hectares, for these
figures show that during these six years more than 6,000
Polish homes have been established over and above the number
of German homes planted on old Polish soil. Moreover the
advantage thus gained by the Poles has been increased during
the last two years."
Erik Givskov,
Germany and her Subjected Races,
Contemporary Review, June, 1905.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902.
The Imperial Pension Fund for Veterans.
A statement of the condition of the imperial pension fund for
the veterans of the wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870 showed that
this fund, which was established by setting apart $138,000,000
out of the war indemnity paid by France, had not for years
past been able to meet the claims made upon it out of the
income it produced. Recourse was had to appropriations of
capital, and the fund would consequently be exhausted in
course of time, probably not earlier than 1908 and not later
than 1910. All the expenses now covered by the fund would then
have to be incorporated in the ordinary estimates for the
Empire. The Prussian Minister for War had estimated that about
600,000 veterans of the former wars were still surviving.
Allowing 10,000 for those who had died since this estimate was
made, and allowing both for the 45,000 who already received a
pension and the 12,000 who depended upon the special fund at
the disposition of the Emperor, there remained over half a
million veterans who as yet received no support from the fund.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902.
New Tariff Law and changed Commercial Policy.
Attitude toward the United States.
See (in this Volume)
TARIFFS, CUSTOMS: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (March-September).
Discussion of Alcoholic Drinking.
See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (June).
Renewal of the Triple Alliance.
See (in this Volume)
TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (August).
Curtailment of visits to their native country of
Expatriated Germans.
Principles asserted by the United States.
See (in this Volume)
NATURALIZATION.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902-1903.
Concessions for building the Bagdad Railway.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902-1904.
Coercive proceedings against Venezuela concerted with
Great Britain and Italy.
Settlement of Claims secured.
Reference to The Hague.
Recognition given to the American Monroe Doctrine.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903.
Elections for the Reichstag.
Large gains by the Socialists.
Their disability in Prussia.
Strong combination supporting the Imperial Government.
Brutality in the Army.
Prosecutions for Lèse Majesté.
State of Colonies.
General elections for the Reichstag, on the 16th of June,
1903, took notable significance from the fact that the
representation of the Social Democrats was increased from 58
to 81, and that these figures gave no full measure of their
actual gain in strength, since their votes in the election
rose in number from 2,107,000 in 1898 to 3,010,771. Had the
distribution of seats in the imperial legislature been fair to
the towns, instead of favoring the agricultural interests, the
Socialists would have gained more. In Berlin they won every
seat but one. Nevertheless, in the elections for the lower
house of the Prussian Landtag, which took place in November,
they could not carry a single seat in the kingdom, owing to
the ingenious disfranchisement of the common people which the
Prussian constitution accomplishes by its classification of
votes. Socialist gains in the Reichstag were made at the
expense of the Radicals, from whom it drew votes which
expressed, not so much conversion to Socialism as bitterness
of opposition to the government. Socialist and Radical
representatives together numbered only 111, against 224 in the
combination of Conservatives, Clericals, and National
Liberals, which gave the Ministry a more than ample support.
"The Social Democrats in Germany are increasing in power at
once steadily and rapidly; for, as Herr Bebel declares, every
speech the Emperor makes secures for them thousands of
adherents, adherents of whom quite a fair percentage now
belong to the Intelligentia—are lawyers, professors,
journalists, artists, etc. Already the party numbers nearly
seven million members; it owns seventy-five journals, of which
some thirty are issued daily; and the Berlin branch alone has
under its control a revenue of £20,000 a year. At the General
Election in 1874, their candidates received 351,671 votes; in
1884, although the Exceptional Laws were then in force, they
received 549,990 votes; and in 1893, 1,786,738. Thus, already
at that time they were numerically the strongest party in the
Empire, as the Ultramontanes received only 1,468,000 votes;
and the Conservatives, 1,038,300. At the 1898 General Election
no fewer than 2,120,000 votes were recorded for the
Socialists; and, at the last Election, that held only the
other day, some 3,000,000. Thanks to the Emperor’s speeches,
thanks, too, to the new Tariff, Herr Bebel and his friends
practically swept everything before them in the first ballot,
and captured seats everywhere—five out of the six in Berlin,
and, what is much more notable, eighteen out of the
twenty-three seats in Saxony, the most ultra-Conservative and
clerical of all the States. Were every constituency of equal
size in Germany, and thus every vote of equal value, the
Socialist Party would already to-day be the dominant party in
the Reichstag."
Edith Sellers,
August Bebel
(Fortnightly Review, July, 1903).
{290}
Throughout the year 1903 much excitement of feeling was caused
by the many complaints that were brought against officers of
the army for brutal and insolent treatment of soldiers. No
less than 180 convictions are said to have been obtained in
the course of the single year, for cruelty in the use of the
power which military rank confers. Several soldiers were found
to have committed suicide to escape from the suffering and
humiliation of their life in the service. Another excitement
of angry discussion came often from the many prosecutions for
lèse-majesté that were instituted at this time. In both
matters, a potent corrective was applied, without doubt, by
the public feeling stirred up.
An official report at the end of the year 1903 showed the
total number of Germans in the German colonial possessions in
Africa and the South Seas was only 5,125, more than a fourth
of the number being officials or in the military force. Since
1884 Germany had expended on its colonies about $75,000,000.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903.
Adoption of a new Child Labor Law.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS WORKERS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903 (October).
Opposition to Socialism among Workmen.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904.
Arrangement of Professorial Interchanges between German
and American Universities.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904.
Rivalry with England in the Persian Gulf.
See (in this Volume)
PERSIA: A. D. 1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904-1905.
Wars with Natives in German African Colonies.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1904-1905, and 1905.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904-1905.
Startling Increase of Labor Conflicts,
compared with previous five years.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905.
The Emperor’s Statement of his Peace Policy based
on Preparation for War.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905.
Effect of the Russo-Japanese War on the Triple Alliance.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905.
Action with other Powers in forcing Financial Reforms
in Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1906.
Raising the Morocco Question.
The Kaiser’s Speech at Tangier.
Demand for an International Conference.
The Conference at Algeciras.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1909.
The Spirit of the Struggle between Workmen and Capitalists.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
Extensions of Popular Rights in Würtemburg, Baden, Bavaria,
Saxony, Saxe Weimar, and Oldenburg.
A Comedy of Election Reform in Prussia.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
Enormous Results derived from Technical Education.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
German Settlements in Brazil.
See (in this Volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.
Popular Demand for better Representation in Prussia
and elsewhere.
School "Strike" in Polish Provinces.
Dissatisfaction with Colonial Policy.
Refusal in the Reichstag of Increased Appropriations.
Dissolution by the Emperor.
Result of the Elections.
Popular Vote heavily against the Government.
Incongruous Coalition or "Bloc" secured by the Chancellor.
The democratic demand in Prussia and in some other German
States, for a better representation in the legislatures than
is afforded by their odious schemes of class election, became
turbulent in the early part of 1906, and was met by strong
military preparations for resistance by the Government.
Notable demonstrations of popular feeling occurred in several
cities, but with proceedings of violence only at Hamburg.
Nothing was yielded to the demand; it was simply defied.
The hard Prussian determination to crush out Polish sentiment
in the Prussian provinces of the kingdom was relentlessly
pursued. Polish children in the schools were required to
receive religious instruction in the German language, and
punished if they refused to answer questions in that tongue.
This provoked a "strike" which took over 100,000 pupils out of
the schools. In dealing with it, the Government both fined and
imprisoned parents, and even sent children to a reformatory,
on the ground that their parents were incapable of giving them
proper care.
The affairs of the German colonies in Africa became the
subject of most heated and important discussion in the
Reichstag during the last months of 1906. Both in German
Southwest Africa and in German East Africa the obstinate
revolts of native tribes were unsubdued, and the wars in the
former were still requiring nearly 15,000 troops. The total
German losses in Southwest Africa since the beginning of the
outbreak of Hereros, Hottentots, and Witbois, were reported to
have been 1750 killed, 900 wounded, 2000 disabled by disease.
Popular feeling seemed to be turning very strongly against the
whole colonial policy of the Empire. The economic promises of
the undertaking were not looked upon as satisfactory.
Statistical reports of the German capital invested in all
German colonies excepting Kiao-chau, in China, showed a total
of 370,000,000 marks ($92,500,000) of which 250,000,000 marks
were classed as remunerative, 100,000,000 as
"underdevelopment," 12,000,000 as unremunerative, and
8,000,000 as missionary property. The capital value of the
total productions of German colonies was estimated at
616,000,000 marks ($154,000,000), half of which came from the
Kameruns and Togo; but the revenue was only balancing the cost
of administration. Ugly stories, moreover, of barbarity in the
treatment of the natives, of official misconduct in other
forms, and of private monopolies permitted, were told. On the
whole, the colonial situation had created a temper in the
Reichstag which was not friendly to the demand of the
Government for increased appropriations to that department of
administration. Even the Centrum or Clerical party, on which
the Ministry counted for the reinforcing of the Conservatives
of "the Right," refused the grant, and joined the Liberals,
the Socialists, the Polish deputies, and other discontented
groups in voting it down. As soon as the vote was announced,
Chancellor Bülow arose and read a decree dissolving the House,
which the Emperor had signed, in expectation of the defeat,
that morning, December 13.
{291}
It is a provision of the Constitution of the German Empire
that "in the case of a dissolution of the Reichstag, new
elections shall take place within a period of sixty days".
See (in Volume I.)
CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.
The elections were appointed accordingly for the 25th of
January, 1907. The preparatory canvass, compressed within six
weeks, was one of extraordinary vigor, especially on the side
of the Government, even the Emperor, as well as the
Chancellor, making personal appeals. The efforts of the latter
were directed especially against the party of the Center, from
its past dependence on which for support the Government was
most anxious to escape. These efforts were so little
effective, however, that the Centrists gained two seats in the
election, carrying 110. The heaviest losers were the
Socialists, who, though they gained a quarter of a million of
electoral votes, yet secured 36 fewer representatives in the
Reichstag than they had before, electing only 43.
Regarded as a plebiscite, the election went heavily
against the government. That is to say, if the elected
Reichstag had been truly representative of the popular vote,
the Government could have made no combination of parties in it
that would have given it support. As it was, the voters were
so unequally represented that Chancellor Bülow was able, by
dexterous compromises, to make up a precarious coalition, or
"bloc," of Conservatives with National Liberals, and even
Radicals, against Socialists, Clericals or Centrists, Poles,
etc., which carried his administration through nearly three
subsequent years.
Somewhat detailed, the election resulted as follows: The
parties which gave subsequent support to the Government for a
time secured 215 seats in the Reichstag, gaining 33, thus
distributed:
Conservatives 108 (gain 13);
National Liberals 56 (gain 5);
Radicals 51 (gain 15).
The parties in opposition won 182 seats,—a net loss among
them of 33,—thus:
Center 110 (gain 2);
Socialists 43 (loss 36);
Poles, Alsatians, etc. 29 (gain 1).
The popular vote in the election was divided among these
parties as follows:
In the parties of the "bloc"—
Conservatives (including Agrarians,
Anti-Semites, etc.) 2,235,000
National Liberals 1,655,000
Radicals 1,226,000
Total for Government 5,116,000
In the Opposition—
Socialists 3,259,000
Center 2,262,000
Poles, etc. 626,000
Total against the Government. 6,147,000
To show what the Socialist vote really indicated, the
following statement of the vote cast and the seats won by that
party in successive elections of the past twenty years is
interesting.
Vote. Seats won. Seats that equal apportionment
would have given.
1887 763,000 11 40
1890 1,427,000 35 80
1893 1,787,000 44 92
1898 2,107,000 56 108
1903 3,011,000 79 125
1907 3,259,000 43 116
It is evident that the surface-show of results in the election
cannot be taken for a true indication of the prevalent state
of mind in the Empire. The Centrists or Clericals, for
example, elected more than twice as many deputies as the
Socialists, by nearly 1,000,000 votes less. The Socialists
polled about 250,000 votes more than in 1903, and yet lost 36
seats. The inequity in the apportionment of representatives
which produced this travesty of representation had some
beginning, no doubt, in the organization of the imperial
system, thirty-six years before; but it had been aggravated by
the enormously disproportionate growth of cities ever since.
That one constituency in Berlin, with a present population of
nearly 700,000, had the same representation as a town of
60,000 people, is doubtless an extreme instance of the
inequalities that had come about, but the distortion was
universal, and altogether in favor of the country landowning
class. The Socialists polled some 250,000 more votes than in
1903, and this was reckoned as an increase substantially
commensurate with the general growth of population in four
years. Hence socialism may be said to have neither gained nor
lost footing in the empire; but hitherto it had been showing
rapid gains.
"The Centrum is one of the queerest, most paradoxical parties
to be found in any country. It is usually called ultramontane
by its enemies because it has its raison d’être in
safeguarding the interests of the Catholic Church; yet it has
not scrupled at times to disregard the wishes of the Vatican
in respect to German internal affairs; and the Vatican, on its
part, carefully avoids identifying its interests with those of
the Centrum, since it is sure of getting better results
through direct diplomatic action at Berlin. ‘The Centrum is an
incalculable party,’ said Prince Bülow last winter in a
campaign letter; ‘it represents aristocratic and democratic,
reactionary and liberal, ultramontane and national policies.’
The party lives upon a reminiscence, its defeat of Bismarck in
the Kulturkampf; but since that time it has been
without any sound reason for its existence. …
See, in Volume II. of this work,
GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
"The government’s attempt to break the power of the Centrum
had already been tried by Bismarck in 1887 and again by
Caprivi in 1893, and it had failed. Bülow’s step was
accordingly a display of courage which the country had not
been accustomed to expect from him. His breach with the
Centrum, however, proved a most popular issue with the
non-Catholic electorate; a thrill of exultation was its first
response to the dissolution, and this feeling persisted
throughout the campaign. Many of the most intelligent voters
had hitherto stood aloof from politics owing precisely to the
predominance of the Centrum; but they now greeted with
enthusiasm the opportunity to extricate the government from
its yoke. University professors, artists, and literary men
organized an ‘Action Committee’ which plied these stay-at-home
Intellektuellen with campaign literature."
W. C. Dreher,
The Year in Germany
(Atlantic Monthly, December, 1907).
{292}
As stated and illustrated above, the election gave the
Government no majority of natural supporters. For the carrying
of its measures it was left dependent on a coalition of
Liberal with Conservative votes. The alliance was an
incongruous one, produced by nothing but a common opposition
to Socialists and Clericals, and it brought the Liberals into
an utterly false position. Within the first year there were
signs of a Liberal revolt from it: whereupon the chancellor
made known that he would resign if the supporting coalition or

"bloc" was not maintained. To avoid such a governmental crisis
the Liberals were said to have given promises of continued
support.
The attitude thus assumed by the German chancellor toward the
Reichstag is practically that of an English prime minister
toward the House of Commons, and it creates a precedent which
must make it very difficult, if not impossible, for imperial
ministers to recover the defiantly independent posture of
former times. Without verbal amendment, perhaps, but
incidentally and informally, by force of circumstances, the
absolutist features of the German constitution are manifestly
dropping away.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907.
Statistics of Population.
Birth Rate and Death Rate.
"The official report upon public health in Prussia for the
year 1907 has just been published [May, 1909], and includes
the latest available statistics regarding the movement of the
population of Germany. The figures confirm the view, which is
not always admitted, that a satisfactory decrease in the
death-rate is still accompanied by a persistently
unsatisfactory decrease in the birth-rate.
"Prussia may be regarded, roughly, as comprising two-thirds of
the German Empire. The population of the empire on December 1,
1905, was 60,641,278, and the population of Prussia was
37,293,324. On January 1, 1907, the population of Prussia was
37,908,104. During the year 1907 the excess of births over
deaths was 578,687, as compared with 595,942 in 1906, 514,941
in 1905, 562,387 in 1904, and 527,263 in 1903. Although the
Prussian figures are not always a sufficient index, it may be
estimated that the excess of births over deaths in the whole
empire during 1907 did not exceed 900,000. The comparatively
satisfactory total increase of population is due to a decline
in the death-rate to 17.96 per 1,000 of the population—the
lowest rate ever recorded. In Silesia, in Hohenzollern, and in
both West and East Prussia the rate exceeds 20 per 1,000. In
the city of Berlin, on the other hand, the rate is 15.62, and
in Berlin (outside the city) only 14.79. For the most part a
high death-rate is set off by a high birth-rate. In Westphalia
and the Rhine Province alone is a high birth-rate accompanied
by a death-rate below the average. As regards ages at which
death occurred, the statistics show a considerable decrease in
infant mortality, although deaths under the age of one year
were 31.14 per cent., or nearly one-third, of the whole number
of deaths. While the death-rate was in 1907 the lowest ever
recorded in Prussia, the birth-rate was the most
unsatisfactory. The total number of births was less by 10,621
in 1907 than in 1906, and was actually less by 1,058 than in
the year 1901. The birth-rate per 1,000 inhabitants declined
to 33.23, as compared with 34.00 in 1906, 33.77 in 1905, and
35.04 in 1904."
Berlin Correspondence London Times,
May 27, 1909.
The same correspondent reported, June 19, a further
publication of statistics, which prove the Prussian returns,
previously given, "to have been a fairly accurate index to the
movement of population in the whole Empire. There is a marked
decline in the birth-rate, which fell to 33.2 per 1,000
inhabitants, as compared with 34.08 in 1906. The death-rate
fell to 18.98, as compared with 19.20 in 1906. The excess of
births over deaths was 882,624, as compared with 910,275 in
1906. The excess, however, of births over deaths (natural
increase of population) was greater in 1907 than in any
previous year except 1906 and 1902 (902,243). The decline in
the birth-rate, which stood at 41.64 in 1877, 38.33 in 1887,
and 37.17 in 1897, as compared with 33.2 in 1907, as now
attributable to a falling off in the number of births in every
part of the Empire except Westphalia, and in Westphalia the
number of births is not quite keeping pace with the total
growth of population. The decrease in the number of births in
the whole Empire in 1907 was 23,766, or 1.1 per cent. In
Saxony the decrease was 3 per cent., and East Prussia, West
Prussia, and Pomerania show about the same percentage. As
regards the death-rate, which stood at 28.05 in 1877, 25.62 in
1887, and 22.52 in 1897, as compared with 18.98 in 1907, there
is a steady decline in the infant mortality rate in all parts
of the Empire, but especially in large towns."
GERMANY: A. D. 1907.
Rapid Decrease of Agricultural Population.
"The results of a census of occupations, taken in December of
1907, has just been published and shows a remarkably rapid
shifting of the population of Prussia from agriculture to
industry and trade. The number of persons engaged in industry
and trade was increased by 1,500,000 from 1895 to 1907, while
the number engaged in agriculture was decreased by 500,000.
This means that the non-farming population rose from 50 to 66
per cent. in twelve years."
Press Report from Berlin,
February, 1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907.
Financial Situation.
See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907 (November).
Treaty with Great Britain, France, Norway, and Russia,
guaranteeing the Integrity of Norway.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1908.
The Scandals connected with the Trials of Editor Harden.
Maximilian Harden, editor of the Zukunft, made attacks
on the character of Prince Eulenburg and Count Kuno von
Moltke, in 1907, on account of which the latter brought a
libel suit against him. "The charges not only affected the
character of the persons accused, but affirmed that they had
constituted a kind of kitchen cabinet, or ‘Camarilla,’ and had
again and again given the Emperor misleading information and
had exerted a very unfortunate influence over him. The case
aroused intense interest throughout Germany, and indeed
throughout Europe; and in spite of the unspeakable nature of
the charges, the testimony was widely reprinted, and much more
frankly, it may be said in passing, than would have been
possible for the yellowest journalism in this country. Harden
was acquitted, and the plaintiff was sentenced to pay the cost
of the suit.
{293}
Taking into account the exalted political position of the
accused, and the great respect in which the Imperial court is
held in Germany, this action of a German judge was regarded as
sustaining the high character of the German courts for
independence. A criminal suit was then brought by the public
prosecutor, at the instigation of Count von Moltke and his
associates, on the charge that Harden had committed an offense
against public morals. On this trial the same witnesses
appeared as on the former trial, but a great change had taken
place in their memory of the transactions to which they had
testified on the first trial. They either contradicted or
repudiated their former statements to such a degree that their
evidence was discredited and Harden’s defense was broken down.
Harden was found guilty and sentenced to four months’
imprisonment. What changed the attitude of the witnesses is a
matter of guesswork. It has been charged that their change of
front was due to very powerful influences brought to bear upon
them."
The Outlook,
January 18, 1908.
An appeal was taken by Harden to a higher court. Official
investigations which followed the trials resulted in the
court-martialing of Count Lynar and General Hohenau, the
former of whom was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment,
while the latter was acquitted. In May, 1908, Prince Eulenburg
was arrested on charges of immorality, but appears to have
been so shattered in health that he could not be brought to
trial. Substantially, Editor Harden has been vindicated.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1909.
Opposition to the "Navy Fever."
Views of Herr von Holstein and Admiral Galster.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
Maintenance of the "Bloc."
Two good measures of legislation.
Revision of the Bourse Law and the law regulating meetings
and association.
More vigorous Germanizing of Polish Prussia.
"Although many members of the Bloc thought its enemies
justified in predicting that it would speedily break down, the
combination did hold together during the past session. It did
more; it passed at least two good laws. It revised the Bourse
Law in a manner fairly satisfactory to the financial
community, so that swindling speculators will henceforth find
it less easy to get the sanction of the courts for repudiating
debts incurred in stock operations. Another law regulates for
the first time on a national basis the right of assembly and
association, which had hitherto been in the hands of the
individual states. It is interesting to note that this is
another important step in the centralizing tendency in
Germany. …
"The measure foreshadowed in my last article for the forcible
acquisition of Polish estates was duly laid before the Diet.
The discussion of the bill brought out intense antagonisms,
and the line of cleavage between the parties was not along
Bloc lines. The Radicals joined with the ‘Centrum’ in opposing
the dispossession of the Poles. As finally passed, the bill
gives the Government the right to acquire, under the law of
eminent domain, a maximum of 174,000 acres in the provinces of
Posen and West Prussia, and to borrow $65,000,000 for this
purpose and for further prosecuting settlement work. The final
reading of the bill in the House of Lords stirred that usually
somnolent body to a remarkable degree. The vote there showed
how deeply, and on what uncommon lines, this radical measure
had divided the minds of the people. While most of the titled
lords of the land, including many intimate friends of the
Kaiser, voted against dispossession, the university professors
and mayors of liberal municipalities voted mostly for it."
W. C. Dreher,
The Year in Germany
(Atlantic, January, 1909).
In his advocacy of this measure Prince Bülow proclaimed the
reasons for it without reserve. "Can we " he asked, "do
without the two Polish provinces, one of which begins within
75 miles of Berlin? That is the crucial point of the
situation; there is no doubt about it. Our eastern provinces
constitute the point of least resistance in the public body.
We dare not wait until the grave disease, with its probable
irreparable consequences, sets in." An English view of the
measure is presented in the following:
"Prince Bülow is only developing the policy of Bismarck, who
perceived, as Frederick the Great did before him, that the
possession of Posen was vital to the Prussian State, and who
held that the surest way to secure that province was to plant
German settlers on Polish land. The strategical importance of
Posen has been a cardinal article in the political and
military creed of all Prussian statesmen and soldiers for
generations. Posen is of far more importance to Prussia than
is Ireland to Great Britain, and the true motives which have
induced Prussian statesmen to make the agrarian proposals
embodied in Prince Bülow’s Bill are to be found not in their
comparatively trifling difficulties with Liberals, Radicals,
and Revolutionists at home, but in the foreign policy of the
Court of Berlin. …
"That portion of Poland which was given to Prussia by the
Congress of Vienna has been administered by that Power in
accordance with the spirit of Frederick the Great. The object
of Frederick was to develop the intellectual and material
resources of his Polish possessions, making them an integral
part of the Prussian monarchy, and gradually eliminating all
recollections on the part of the Poles of their having once
been an independent nation. This policy to be successful
should be carried out by officials with intellects as clear,
if not as powerful, as that possessed by Frederick himself.
The Prussian officials, however, who have administered Posen
since 1815, have not always risen to the height of their
mission. Edward Henry v. Flottwell, who was charged with the
government of the province from 1830 to 1840, alone understood
the conditions of success. He knew that in politics it is as
mischievous as it is futile to endeavour to reconcile the
irreconcilable. The efforts made in that direction after 1815
strengthened the revolutionary spirit in Posen. On the
retirement of Flottwell, Frederick William IV. tried again to
propitiate Polish national feeling, with the result that the
irreconcilable forces grew in strength, and in March, 1848,
the Poles were the driving-power of the Revolutionary movement
in Berlin. …
"As far as international life is concerned the true
significance of the Polish question is in the relations it has
created between the three great Northern Powers. Those between
Prussia and Russia have in consequence become extremely
intimate. At the present moment that intimacy is as great, if
not greater, than at any previous time.
{294}
Besides the German Ambassador at St. Petersburg and the
Russian Ambassador at Berlin, there is a German military
officer at St. Petersburg, and a Russian military officer at
Berlin, who are especially charged to convey intimate
communications between the Czar and the Kaiser. In spite of
the alliance between Russia and France, which was concluded by
the former Power, mainly for financial reasons, and which has
never much disturbed the equanimity of Berlin, it is quite
certain that in no conceivable circumstances will there be a
real breach between Prussia and Russia. The Government of the
Kaiser must and will make every possible concession to Russia
rather than provoke a serious breach. This is the true
inwardness of the policy as regards Poland. As long as Posen
continues Polish Germany will be largely dependent on Russia."
Rowland Blennerhassett,
The Significance of the Polish Question
(Fortnightly Review, March, 1908).
Dr. Dillon, who reviews European politics regularly for the
Contemporary Review, says with positiveness that the
Polish expropriation bill was passed "against the better
judgment of press, bar, gentry, political parties and people."
He cites it as an illustration of the absolute domination
under which the Prussian legislature is held, and maintains
that national feeling and opinion have, practically, no
influence over Prussian policy and no weight in the conduct of
Prussian affairs. Concerning motives behind the Polish
expropriation, this well-informed writer reports it to be a
prevalent belief in Austrian and other political circles that
the bill was driven through as a military measure, in
anticipation of some future hostile alliance between Russia
and Great Britain. It seems to be the belief that the Kaiser,
if not his ministers, is haunted with the expectation of a war
to be fought with those powers in combination, and is
determined that, if a British fleet in the Baltic is ever
coöperating with a Russian army, there shall be a population
of patriotic Germans instead of disaffected Prussian Poles
between them and Berlin.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
The leading motive of German Foreign Policy officially stated.
The Principle of the "Open Door."
Colonial Expansion unnecessary.
"Usually it has been stated that Germany has an annual
increase of population of 800,000, that these new masses must
be supported by manufactories, and that the German Empire will
thus be forced, with or against its will, into expansion, in
order to procure the raw material and to establish the
requisite markets for its industrial growth. The annexation of
Holland and Flemish Belgium, containing Antwerp, is described
as a mere preliminary necessary to make possible such measures
of expansion. Germany must enlarge its maritime basis, and
should have control of the Lower Rhine and its harbors. To the
alien, these arguments may seem plausible enough. Whoever is
acquainted with existing conditions, however, knows that,
though seemingly plausible, this is not the truth.
"In the first place, it is not true that colonial expansion is
a necessity for Germany, resulting from its industrial growth.
The impetus given to German commerce and German manufactures
is to be ascribed far more to the increase in the buying
capacity of other nations—England, France, Russia or
America—than to all the German colonies combined. Germany
needs no colonies; what she wants is merely free competition
on all seas, the open door, and the right to cooperate freely
on an equal footing with all other commercial and industrial
nations, in opening up new and as yet unopened districts and
markets. Hence the principle of the open door is the leading
motive of the foreign policy pursued by Germany. It is the red
thread that winds itself through the Eastern-Asiatic, the
Oriental and the Moroccan policy of the German Empire. The
high quality of all German products obviates the necessity of
unfair preferences accruing to political power. All they need
is a fair chance to compete on equal terms with other
countries. The world is large enough, and rich enough, in
still dormant possibilities, to admit of a pacific
co-operation by all nations in this great work."
Baron von Speck-Sternburg,
Imperial German Ambassador to the United States,
The Truth about German Expansion
(North American Review, March, 1908).
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
Amendment to Industrial Code.
Hours of Labor.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
Remarkable Decrease of Emigration.
See (in this Volume)
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
North Sea and Baltic Agreements.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (January).
Institution of Juvenile Courts.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (April).
Passage of Law defining for the Empire at large the Rights
of Association and Public Meeting.
The rights of association and public meeting were determined
for the Empire at large by an enactment of the Reichstag, for
the first time, in April, 1908. Hitherto each State had
regulated these fundamental matters of political freedom by
legislation of its own, some with considerable latitude, and
others, especially in the North German States, with a narrow
restraint, subject, in an intolerable degree, to the
discretion or will of the police. The national law now brought
into force, superseding the local legislation, enlarged
greatly the liberty of citizens to associate themselves for
legitimate purposes and to hold public meetings. An attempt to
forbid the use of any foreign language at public meetings was
defeated; but public speaking in other languages was
sanctioned only in districts where 60 per cent, of the
population use the foreign tongue. This does not apply,
however, to international congresses in Germany, or to
meetings of electors for the election of legislative
representatives, Federal or State; and the States have some
privilege of modifying the rule.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (April).
Treaty with Denmark, England, France, the Netherlands, and
Sweden, for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (November).
Excitement in Europe over a published Interview
with the Emperor.
What may fairly be called a "row" in the European world, and
of the greatest liveliness in Germany itself, arose, early in
November, 1908, from the appearance in the London
Telegraph of a reported interview with the Emperor by
"a representative Englishman who long since passed" it was
said, "from public into private life."
{295}
The writer characterized it as "a calculated indiscretion,"
which was expected to prove of great public service, by
removing misconceptions of the Emperor’s feelings toward the
English. The effect produced by the publication left no doubt
of its indiscretion, but proved likewise that it had been very
badly miscalculated. In his anxiety to convince the English of
his friendliness to them the talkative Emperor made known that
France and Russia, during the Boer War, had invited him to
join them in a demand on England to stop it, and claimed
credit for having prepared for the British army in that war a
plan of campaign, which could be found at Windsor Castle, and
which was on lines that Lord Roberts had followed in his
subsequent operations to a large extent.
How flattering this story was to English pride, and how
pleasing to the Governments of Russia and France, might be
imagined very easily; but it would not have been so easy to
anticipate the outbreak of anger that it exploded in Germany.
The Empire itself was surprised by that. It had been
submissive to so many "indiscretions" of speech from its
Kaiser that it could hardly have expected to be moved
excitedly by anything from the imperial lips. But, with the
indiscretion in this case, there seemed to be a reckless
interference with the appointed organs provided for dealing
with foreign affairs, doing mischief to the whole system of
governmental administration. This proved, however, to be less
the fact than appeared. According to subsequent explanations,
the Emperor had sent the manuscript of the interview (which
embodied the substance of a number of conversations with
several Englishmen) to the Chancellor, Prince von Bülow, for
his judgment on it, and the latter, not recognizing its
character, had not read it, but passed it to a subordinate,
who simply verified the facts stated in it and returned it to
the Emperor as approved.
This revelation convicted the Chancellor very clearly of a
careless performance of duty in his office, and laid on him a
large share of responsibility for the mischievous publication.
He offered his resignation to the Emperor and it was refused.
Constitutionally he was responsible only to the Emperor; the
Reichstag could not hold him to account, in any practical way,
nor did it attempt to do so; but there was such plain speaking
in the Chamber from all parties, Conservative, Liberal, and
Radical, during two days of debate, November 11 and 12, as
never had been heard in Germany before. Whatever the language
of the Constitution might be, it was made known beyond a
question, then and in a later discussion, that Germany
expected the crowned head of its Government to conduct
himself—in the words of one speaker—as "the first servant of
the State," preserving his own august irresponsibility only by
acting and speaking in public matters, through ministers
responsible to the elected representatives of the people. "We
wish," said Herr Bassermann, leader of the National Liberals
"so far as it is possible, for trustworthy guarantees against
the intervention of the personal regime," and before he sat
down he declared with the approval of the House; "It is the
desire of my friends that the Kaiser should be thoroughly
informed with regard to these proceedings. … Although fully
convinced that even these utterances of our Kaiser sprang from
his deep anxiety for the welfare of his people, we must give
expression to the earnest desire that the Kaiser will, in his
political activity, impose upon himself the reserve proper to
a Constitutional ruler."
Dr. Wiener, for the Radicals, corroborated the previous
speaker by declaring that the article in question had filled
the entire nation with embitterment, consternation, and rage,
because it was felt that "confidence in our trustworthiness
had been shaken. Everywhere it had been recognised that
Germany’s prestige had received a severe blow." The trend of
his speech was to show that the so-called "interview" had been
interpreted in Germany as a crass specimen of personal regime
which was distasteful to the nation in its entirety.
Constitutional Government was what was wanted: the Minister,
not the Sovereign, should be responsible to the people.
Prince Hatzfeld, of the Imperial party, who stands in great
favor with the Kaiser, impressed upon the House that the
Chancellor and not the wearer of the crown was the responsible
personage in the State. Prince von Bülow, speaking on the
first day of debate, declared that grave injury had been
caused by the publication in the Daily Telegraph. He
added that immediately on reading the article in question, as
to the disastrous consequences of which he could not for a
moment be in doubt, he sent in his resignation, taking upon
himself full responsibility for the mistakes which had been
made in handling the manuscript. And he followed this up with
the following significant statement: "Gentlemen! recognition
that the publication of these utterances has not in England
had the effect anticipated by his Majesty the Emperor, and, on
the other hand, in Germany has called forth great excitement
and painful regret, will—this firm conviction I have won in
these sad days—induce his Majesty the Kaiser in future to
impose upon himself, even in his private conversations, that
reserve which is indispensable to a consistent policy and to
the authority of the Crown. If that were not so, neither I nor
any of my successors could accept responsibility for it."
Proposals of amendment to the Constitution, carrying such
ministerial responsibility into the fundamental law, were
advocated without success; but the unwritten constitution
which public opinion moulds slowly in every country took a
notable shaping from these debates.
For some time the Emperor was very silent, and kept himself
unusually retired. Having occasion to speak publicly at Berlin
on the 21st of November, when the centennial of the formation
of the City Council was celebrated, it was reported that
"Prince von Bülow stepped forward and impressively handed him
a printed sheet," from which, contrary to his custom, he read
his remarks.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908-1909.
Attempted Reform of Imperial Finance and its Defeat.
Breaking of Chancellor Bülow’s "Bloc" in the Reichstag by
the Government’s project of New Taxes.
Triumph of the Agrarian Interests in renewed Coalition
with the Center.
Resignation of Chancellor Bülow.
His successor.
Expenditure outrunning income from year to year—thanks mainly
to the burden of army and navy—with deficits made good by
loans, mortgaging the future in an ever-growing public debt,
had forced the Government, in 1908, to a resolution, not that
the imperial expenditure on armament must be cut down, but
that imperial taxation must be increased.
{296}
The Governments of the Federated States, which are directly
represented, as such, in the Federal Council, were assenting
parties to this conclusion, and the resulting measure was
regarded, in all the proceedings which followed, as emanating
essentially from that senatorial branch of the Parliament of
the Empire.
Preparatory to the undertaking, a new Minister of Finance,
Herr Reinhold Sydow, was brought into office, and early in
November, 1908, he submitted to the Reichstag a bill providing
for new taxes that were estimated to add 500,000,000 marks
($125,000,000) yearly to the Treasury of the Empire. The
scheme included an extended and augmented inheritance tax, new
methods of deriving revenue from spirits and tobacco, added
excise duties on beer and bottled still wines, taxes on
electricity, gas, advertisements, etc. The bill went to the
Finance Committee of the Reichstag and developed there, during
the next five months, an antagonism of class interests, and
consequently of parties, which completely shattered the
"bloc," or coalition, which Chancellor Bülow had contrived to
organize in 1906 for the support of his administration. The
proposed new inheritance tax or death duty was especially
obnoxious to the land-owning classes,—the agrarian core of
German conservatism,—and no influence from the Government
could save it from being stifled in their hands. Other
oppositions were rallied against the proposals which touched
spirits, tobacco, electricity, gas, and newspaper
advertisements, and by the 20th of March, 1909, it was known
that the Finance Committee had rejected or would reject all
but about one-fifth of the new taxation which the Government
and the Federal Council claimed from it.
A month later the Government signified its abandonment of a
present expectation, at least, of financial reform, by
inviting subscriptions to a fresh loan. The budget wrangle in
Committee went on, however, until the 13th of May, when the
National-Liberals, the Radicals, and the Socialists of the
Committee withdrew from it, the Chairman, Herr Paasche, a
National-Liberal, resigning, refusing to take any further part
in proceedings which they wholly disapproved. This left the
Conservatives, the Center or Clerical party, and the Poles,
who seem to have practically organized an opposition "bloc,"
which proceeded to frame a budget on entirely different lines
from that which the Government desired, one of its
contemplated features being a tax on purchases and sales of
stocks. On the 18th of May the Reichstag was adjourned until
the 15th of June, and a month of rest from the controversy was
enjoyed.
When the Reichstag reassembled the Government laid before it
several proposals of taxes to be substituted for those which
the Committee had rejected. Inheritance taxation was still
prominent in the revised scheme, but considerably modified in
its range and reduced in productiveness. With it went an
extensive readjustment of stamp duties, applied to bonds,
stock certificates, transfers of real estate, bills and checks
and a tax on policies of fire insurance. This revised budget
of additions to the Imperial revenue was estimated to yield
about $35,000,000. It fared no better than the original
proposals of the Government. A week after its introduction the
Reichstag adopted the tax on securities (called the
Cotierungssteuer) which the Government disapproved, and
on the 24th of June it rejected the new inheritance tax bill,
by 194 votes to 186, the minority being composed of
National-Liberals, Radicals and Socialists, with a few from
the Conservative side. On the next day, rumors of the intended
resignation of Prince Bülow were checked by the publication of
the following semi-official statement:
"Prince von Bülow will remain as chancellor of the empire. The
Reichstag will not be dissolved. The chancellor holds that his
duty is to be in accord with the conviction of the Federal
Council of the necessity to bring about the passage of a
taxation measure, but with the exclusion therefrom of duties
on stock transfers, the output of the grain mills, and the
exports of coal. Financial reform must now come into
operation. What the chancellor will do after this has been
accomplished is his personal affair."
Nevertheless, it was made known on the 27th that the
Chancellor had offered his resignation to the Emperor, who had
declined to accept it, pointing out "that in the unanimous
conviction of the Federal Governments the early achievement of
finance reform is a vital question for the internal welfare of
the Empire, as well as for its position in relation to foreign
countries. In the circumstances he could not take into closer
consideration the fulfilment of Prince Bülow’s wish to be
relieved of his offices until the labours for the reform of
the Imperial finances should have produced a result of a
positive kind which the Federal Governments could accept." To
this statement there was added, semi-officially, next day, the
following: "Subject to the rejection of those taxation
proposals which would be injurious to the general interest,
and therefore impossible of acceptance by the Federal
Governments, the Imperial Chancellor was unwilling not to
comply with the Emperor’s desire. Nevertheless, having regard
to the political development which was manifested by the
division on the inheritance tax, he is irrevocably resolved to
retire from office immediately after the accomplishment of
finance reform."
Then followed negotiations with the Conservative-Clerical
majority now fully in control of the Reichstag, the Government
yielding step by step, and the Federal Council coming openly
into the management of the negotiations, the Chancellor
falling into the background, and waiting only for permission
to lay his office down. In the resulting budget of new taxes
there was very little saved of the "financial reform" which
the Federal Council and the Chancellor had undertaken to
introduce. On most points the land-owners had their way. The
character and effect of the legislation accomplished in the
early days of July were described thus by a Berlin
correspondent of the New York Evening Post, who wrote
on the 11th of the month:
"The leitmotif of the bill is that property shall be
protected and industry shall pay. Even on the reckoning of the
new majority the ratio between indirect and direct taxation in
the scheme is as 14 to 34, but in reality property comes off
far better. … The large land-owners will not be hit at all.
The only tax that could touch them to any appreciable extent
is the stamp duty on transfers of real estate.
{297}
But the remedy lies in their hands; they need not sell, and,
in any event, of the $10,000,000 at which the returns are
estimated only $1,250,000 at most falls on landed property. If
the spirits bounty to be paid by the Government to the spirit
distilleries (which are in agrarian hands) is set against this
sum, it will be seen that the agrarians do not only not suffer, but net a profit of some ten millions of dollars. Most
of all it is the consuming classes that are the victims of the
new majority's taxation proposals. Every cup of coffee, the
staple nourishment of the German workingman’s family, every
cup of tea, every glass of beer and schnapps, the staple
refreshment of the German workingman, will cost more, the
total sum to be derived from these sources reaching
$54,250,000, which, with the duty on the poor man’s cigar,
amounts to over $60,000,000. Adding to this 30 per cent. for
the increase in the middleman’s prices, the total burden of
the consuming classes reaches over $80,000,000, or an increase
of $7.50 on the workingman’s household expenses a year."
On the 13th of July the session of the Reichstag was closed by
Imperial decree. On the 14th the following announcement
appeared in the Imperial Gazette: "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 Bülow, to
be relieved of his offices, and has conferred upon him the
High Order of the Black Eagle with brilliants. His Majesty has
been graciously pleased to appoint Dr. von Bethmann-Hollweg,
Secretary of State for the Interior, Minister of State, to be
Imperial Chancellor, President of the Ministry, and Minister
for Foreign Affairs." Herr Sydow now resigned from the
secretaryship of the Imperial Treasury, and was made Prussian
Minister of Commerce, in place of Herr Delbruck, who succeeded
the new Chancellor as "Imperial Secretary of State for the
Interior and representative of the Imperial Chancellor." Herr
Sydow’s place in the department of the Imperial Treasury was
taken by Herr Wermuth.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908-1909 (September-May).
The Casablanca Incident and its Arbitration at The Hague.
Friendly Agreement with France.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1907-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909.
Accelerated Naval Construction.
Excitement in Great Britain.
Parliamentary Debates.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909.
Extent of Trade Unionism.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909.
Proposed Amendments of the System of Workingmen’s Insurance.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, THE PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS;
also,
LABOR PROTECTION: ACCIDENT AND SICKNESS INSURANCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (January).
Rejection of Proposed Reforms of the Elective Franchise
in Prussia.
See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: PRUSSIA.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (April).
Economic Conditions.
Gain of Fifteen Years in National Wealth.
Increased Cost of Living.
Diminished Savings.
Check on the Overcrowding of Towns.
A report by the British Consul-General on the trade and
commerce of the consular district of Frankfort-on-the-Main for
the year ending April 30, 1909, gave the following items of
interest touching general economic conditions of the year:
Early in 1909 the national wealth of Germany, which had been
estimated at 220,000,000,000 marks 15 years ago, was estimated
to have reached 350,000,000,000 marks—i. e., an increase of 59
per cent. in half a generation.
"The cheapening of all manufactured commodities in comparison
with the price they had reached during the end of the boom has
failed until now, in spite of an unprecedented supply of cash,
because the development which had taken place behind the wall
of protection—the system of syndication—has killed free
competition at home and has unduly raised the cost of the raw
material needed by the finishing industries. The agricultural
protection as well as the industrial has, moreover, increased
the cost of living and has narrowed down the margin of profit
which might have been used like a safety valve for reductions
of price to revive trade at home or facilitate competition
abroad. Syndication and protection have in fact combined to
deprive German manufacture of that elastic cheapening power
which ought chiefly to revive trade during the period
succeeding a commercial high tide. At the same time the
increased protection of the home market has admittedly
rendered foreign markets more difficult for the German
manufacturer."
See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES, &C.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (September).
Speech of the Emperor on the Pride of his Subjects in
"the Game of War."
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (September).
Latest Statistics of the Social Democratic Party.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIALISM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (October-December).
Socialist Gains in By-elections, etc.
Changed relations between Parties and the Government.
Several by-elections for the Reichstag and elections to the
diets of Saxony and Baden in these months showed somewhat
startling gains for the Socialists. In the Saxon Diet they won
25 seats, whereas in the late chamber, elected in 1907, they
had held but 1. Both the Conservatives and the National
Liberals were losers in the contest, the former most heavily.
The Radicals shared a few of the gains. In the Baden Diet the
Socialist gain was 8. At a by-election in one of the
Brandenburg divisions the Socialists increased their vote by
more than a thousand.
The Reichstag was reopened by the Emperor on the 30th of
November. On the organization of the House, Dr. Herman S.
Paasche, National Liberal, declined election as Second
Vice-President, stating that the National-Liberal party had
decided unanimously not to accept office in the reorganization
of the House. The Imperial party, or free Conservatives, also
declined to take part in the organization, while the Radicals
went so far as to decide that they would cast blank votes.
These three parties are determined to place the full
responsibility for the coming legislation upon the German
Conservatives and Clericals.
{298}
This new attitude of parties, as one side of the sequence to
the dissolution of the bloc of the past two years, and to the
retirement of Chancellor Bülow, was responded to most
appositely on the side of the Government by the new Imperial
Chancellor, Dr. von Bethmann Hollweg, when he made his first
speech in that capacity to the Reichstag, December 9th. In not
many words he made it plain that the Imperial Government’s
policy now was "to stand aloof from parties and groups of
parties; in short, that the government of Germany was not a
government by party. Governmental measures would be submitted
to the Reichstag for adoption, but he was not disposed to
define the constellation of parties which, he thought, would
support these measures. The recent political crisis over the
taxation bill had made no change in German institutions, he
continued. Radicalism strove to divide all Germany into two
political camps, but the existence of such a dualism was a
fiction devised for party objects. It could not contribute to
the sound development of the country for every proposal to be
classified as either radical or reactionary. Germany, the
chancellor affirmed, needed continuous and steady policies,
both at home and abroad, to satisfy the people to the end that
their work, either material or intellectual, might be
undisturbed by disorders or experiments." His words in part
were as follows:
"As decidedly as the separate parties have ever refused, and
still refuse, to be Government parties—and I personally can
thoroughly understand it—so little will a Government in
Germany ever be able to be a party Government. With the
difficulties which arise from this fact every German statesman
has had to fight, and in this relation of things, which is
historic and based upon the peculiarity of our party life and
of our State institutions, the last crisis has altered nothing
whatever. I do not shut my eyes," continued the Chancellor,
"to the excitement of party politics which pervades the
country." But he believed that there were wide circles of the
German people who did not wish to live permanently on
political excitement and recrimination. "What our people
desires in the first place is not to be disturbed in its
actual work, whether economic or intellectual, either at home
or abroad, in the markets of the world, by unrest or
experiments. It wishes to be supported and encouraged by a
policy of continuity and stability at home and abroad." As in
the past there had never been a single party which had given
its stamp to German policy, so all parties must work together
in the future. The question was not one of "actual
collaboration" or of nervous anxiety about the creation of a
temporary Parliamentary majority, but of the conviction that
there was an obligation to work imposed by the community upon
each of its representatives, and the certainty that this
obligation would survive the present turmoil.
It is an interesting experiment which the new Chancellor is
venturing on; but it seems to require a Bismarck in the
Chancellor’s shoes.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (December).
The Mannesmann Concession Question.
See (in this Volume)
MOROCCO: A. D. 1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1910 (March).
Demand of the Reichstag for Ministerial Responsibility.
On the 15th of March, 1910, it was reported from Berlin that
the Reichstag had adopted a motion, made by a Socialist
member, demanding the introduction of a bill making the
chancellor responsible to the Reichstag for his official acts
and also extending his responsibility to cover all of the acts
and documents made by the Emperor, for which responsibility he
shall be answerable in a court of law.
[Transcriber's note: The First World War was fought from
July 28, 1914 to November 11, 1918, between the Allies
(France, the United Kingdom, Russia, the United States,
Italy, and Japan) and the Central Powers (Germany,
Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria).]
----------GERMANY: End--------
GHENT: A. D. 1900.
Municipal organization of Insurance against Unemployment.
See (in this Volume)
POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: UNEMPLOYMENT.
GHOSE, Dr. Rash Bihari.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
GIBBONEY, D. Clarence.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: PHILADELPHIA.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of Andrew Carnegie:
To Building for the Bureau of American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS, BUREAU OF.
For Court House and Library for Permanent Court of
Arbitration at The Hague.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1903.
To Foundation for the Improvement of Teaching.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1908.
To Hero Funds.
See (in this Volume)
CARNEGIE HERO FUNDS.
To Institute at Pittsburg.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
To Institution of Washington.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION: CARNEGIE INSTITUTION.
To Scottish Universities.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: SCOTLAND: A. D. 1901.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of George Crocker for Cancer Research.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: CANCER RESEARCH.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of Edwin Ginn to Fund for the Peace Propaganda.
See (in this Volume)
War, The Revolt against: A. D. 1909.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of Mrs. Harriman and others to the State of New York for
a State Park on the Hudson.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909-1910.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of Miss Anna T. Jeanes to Schools for Southern Negroes.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of Mr. John Stewart Kennedy.
Nearly $30,000,000, out of an estate valued close to
$60,000,000, was left to public institutions by John Stewart
Kennedy, banker and railroad builder, who died early in
November, 1909. The remainder of the estate was bequeathed to
relatives and employés. The larger bequests to religious,
educational, and benevolent institutions were the following:
Board of Foreign Missions of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States $2,250,000
Board of Home Missions of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States 2,250,000
Board of Church Erection Fund of the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States 2,250,000
Presbyterian Hospital in New York City 2,250,000
New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox,
and Tilden Foundations 2,250,000
Metropolitan Museum of Art 2,250,000
Columbia University 2,250,000
Church Extension Committee of the
Presbytery of New York 1.500,000
Trustees of Robert College,
Constantinople, Turkey 1,500,000
University of the City of New York 750,000
{299}
American Bible Society 750,000
Presbyterian Board of Aid for Colleges 750,000
Charity Organization Society of the City
of New York for its School of Philanthrophy,
"to which I have already given an endowment
of $250,000, or to the said school if the
same be separately incorporated at the time
of my death," 750,000
United Charities, a corporation of
the State of New York 1,500,000

GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of Letchworth Park to the State of New York.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE; A. D. 1907.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of Rhodes Scholarships.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
Of John D. Rockefeller to the General Education Board.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable:
The Russell Sage Foundation.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIAL BETTERMENT. UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
From Mrs. Russell Sage to Yale University.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1910.
Of Mrs. Russell Sage to the U. S. Government.
See (in this Volume)
Constitution Island.
GINN, EDWIN:
Great Gift to Fund for the Peace Propaganda.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
GIOLITTI, SIGNOR GIOVANNI:
Minister of the Interior and then Premier of
the Italian Government.
See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1901, 1903, and after.
GIORGIS, GENERAL DE:
Command of Gendarmerie in Macedonia.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.
GLADSTONE, HERBERT J.:
Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
First Governor-General of United South Africa.
See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1908-1909.
GOBAT, ALBERT.
See (in this Volume)
Nobel Prizes.
GOETHALS, LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GEORGE W.:
Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal.
See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909.
GOLGI, CAMILLO.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
GOLUCHOWSKI, Count.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
GOMEZ, José Miguel:
President of Cuba.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1906-1909.
GOMEZ, General Maximo:
Military head of the last Cuban Rising against Spain.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1902.
GOMEZ, General:
Acting President of Venezuela.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1907-1909.
GOMPERS, Samuel:
Sentence for alleged Violation of an Injunction.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908-1909.
GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE, at Khartoum.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: EGYPT.
GOREMYKIN, Ivan Logginovich.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1906.
GORGAS, Dr. W. C., United States of America:
In charge of the Sanitation of the Panama Canal Zone.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: PANAMA CANAL.
GOVERNORS’ CONFERENCE, on Conservation of Natural Resources.
See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.
"GRAFT," so called, in Municipal Government.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY PROJECT.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1903.
GRAY, Justice George:
On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.
GREAT BRITAIN.
See (in this Volume and Volume II)
ENGLAND.
GREECE: A. D. 1905.
Assassination of Prime Minister Delyannis.
His successors.
Theodoros Delyannis, the Premier of Greece, was assassinated
on the 13th of June, 1905, by a revengeful gambler whose place
had been closed by the police. A new Ministry formed by M.
Ralli conducted the Government until December, when its defeat
in the election of a president of the representative assembly
forced a resignation. It was succeeded by a Cabinet formed
under M. Theotokis, the leader of the Opposition.
GREECE: A. D. 1905-1908.
Barbarities of Greek bands in Macedonia.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
GREECE: A. D. 1905-1906.
Insurrection in Crete.
Demand for Union with "her Mother Greece."
Investigation by the Powers.
Resignation of Prince George.
Appointment of M. Zaimis.
See (in this Volume)
CRETE; A. D. 1905-1906.
GREECE: A. D. 1907-1909.
The Cretan Situation as dealt with by the
Four Protecting Powers.
See (in this Volume)
CRETE: A. D. 1907-1909.
GREECE: A. D. 1909 (July).
Destructive Earthquake in Ellis.
See (in this Volume)
EARTHQUAKES: GREECE.
GREECE: A. D. 1909.
The Government dominated by a Military League.
Its submission to the Dictatorship.
Whatever vitality may previously have animated the forms of
constitutional government in Greece was extinguished suddenly
in July, 1909, by a demonstration of power on the part of a
league of army officers to give orders to it. The Military
League was backed, evidently, by a strong popular feeling
against the Government, partly well founded, perhaps, but
largely due to an unreasoning desire for rash undertakings to
secure the annexation of Crete. The revolution in Turkey had
stimulated this by seeming to open opportunities for breaking
the island away from the claimed sovereignty of the Turks.
What Bulgaria had been able to do in the situation for
herself, and what Austria had done in annexing Bosnia and
Herzegovina, it must be that the Powers which held Crete in
commission, so to speak, could do for Greece, in the present
state of things, if Greece had a competent Government to deal
with affairs. This seems to have been the feeling, to a large
extent, which produced the Military League and the popular
threatenings whereby the Ministry of M. Theotoki was impelled
to resign office on the 17th of July. The new Cabinet
constructed by the King, under M. Ralli, held the semblance of
power a little more than a month, and then had to choose
between dropping it and taking orders from the League.
{300}
When it hesitated, and ventured an arrest of several leaders
of the military combination, the latter, in a body, to the
number of over 500, with about 2000 of the men of their
commands, took possession of a hill outside of Athens, on the
27th of August, and established there a menacing camp. Parley
was then opened with them and they submitted a programme of
demands which M. Ralli declined to accept, and resigned.
According to a manifesto published by the League on the 27th,
its demands, summarized in a letter from Athens, were as
follows: "The officers belonging to the Military League
respectfully ask the King and the Government to carry out
radical reforms, and especially to proceed with the
reorganization of the army and navy, in order that Greece
might not in the future have to undergo any more humiliations
such as she had had to tolerate in the past. The commands held
by the Royal Princes in the army and navy are considered by
the league to be prejudicial to their own prestige and to the
accomplishment of their duties. The officers consequently
insist that the Crown Prince, who is commander-in-chief of the
army, and the other Royal Princes, should not hold any command
in the army. They demand that the army shall be controlled by
a council composed of the commanders of the three divisions
under the presidency of the eldest of them, and the
superintendence of the Crown Prince. They further ask that the
two War Ministries should be invariably entrusted to the best
officers in the army and navy and not to civilians. Among the
detailed features of their programme they ask that four
classes of the reserve should be called to the colours
annually for manoeuvres, that a battleship of not less than
10,000 tons, and eight destroyers of not less than 150 tons
each, should be constructed, that the existing three cruisers
should be repaired, that all the useless small ships should be
sold, including the Royal yachts, with the exception of one
for the King, that a war school should be established, that a
foreign general with some officers should be called in to
organize a Staff service and to look after the theoretical and
practical training of the army and navy, and that a more
efficient corps of Gendarmerie should be organized. In
order to provide the necessary funds to carry out these
reforms the league suggests that large retrenchments should be
made in the general Budget."
The King found a compliant premier, M. Mavromichalis, who
submitted to these dictations in principle, amnestied the
whole League, and took one of its leaders, Colonel
Lapathiotis, into his Cabinet, as Minister of War. Since that
day the actual Government of Greece has been transferred from
the King, his Constitutional Ministers and the "Boule," or
Legislative Chamber, to the Military League. The nominal
Government turned a cheerful face to the world by publishing a
semi-official explanation which began as follows:
"Now that the situation has become clearer it becomes plain
that the sole object of the military movement was the
reorganization of the army and the reform and improvement of
the Administration. The movement was at no time directed
against the King or the dynasty, nor had it as its object the
diminution of the rights and privileges of the Crown or the
violation of the Constitution. The request of the Military
Committee that the Crown Prince and the Royal Princes should
be relieved of their high commands in the army was only
formulated in their Highnesses’ interests, and with a view to
relieve them of grave responsibilities likely to injure their
prestige and in order to avert the discord and hatred which
personal favoritism and the sympathies of the Princes would
inevitably have engendered among the officers serving under
them."
That the League had strong backing in the country was shown by
popular demonstrations, one of which, at Athens, on the 27th
of September, brought 50,000 people, it was said, to the Champ
de Mars, to pass a resolution and to convey it to the King.
"The resolution began by expressing profound satisfaction at
the initiation of the struggle by the Military League against
the mischievous influence of parties on State affairs, and
against the misuse of interest in the army and navy, and …
concluded by declaring the determination of the people to
exercise constant supervision over the Government and the
Chamber until their demands had been completely fulfilled.
"The demonstrators then marched to the Royal Palace, where the
committee were received by the King and handed his Majesty the
resolution. The King, after congratulating them upon the
orderly and lawful way in which the people had made known
their wishes, expressed his conviction that his Government and
the Chamber would consider them and would vote the requisite
laws."
The Chamber, however, was less compliant, and showed marked
signs of refusing legislation for the removal of the royal
Princes from active service in the army. This angered the
military dictators, and fresh trouble was threatened. It was
averted by the resignation of the Princes, and by the speedy
adoption of the whole series of measures demanded by the
League, no less than twenty-three bills being enacted within
the space of an hour.
The dictatorial work of the League, however, had not gone far
enough to satisfy one of its chiefs, a Lieutenant Typaldos,
commander of a fleet of torpedo-boats and submarines, who
suddenly set on foot a naval revolt of his own, withdrawing,
with a few other officers and men, to Salamis and seizing the
arsenal there. But, having the League against him, Typaldos
was easily put to flight, and was captured eventually in
ignominious disguise. For a time after this all went smoothly,
and the Government was credited with a number of good
measures, which its military masters permitted it to adopt.
The situation was ruffled again toward the end of December by
some offensive words in the Chamber from the Minister of War,
Colonel Lapathiotis, which a large part of the deputies
resented. These gave notice that they would not enter the
Chamber again while the Colonel remained in the Ministry.
Fortunately, just at this time, the obnoxious Minister gave
offense to his associates of the League, by promoting several
officers without consulting them, and they were willing that
he should be dismissed.
{301}
GREECE: A. D. 1910.
Agreements for a restored Constitutional Regime.
The dismissal of Colonel Lapathiotis emboldened the party in
the Chamber which follows the lead of ex-Premier Rallis to
make some show of an independent opposition, and provoked
thereby the most arrogant reminder yet given of the
dictatorial power of the Military League. On the 2d of January
two officers from the League appeared in the Chamber, bearing
letters addressed to the Prime Minister and to the two leaders
of Opposition parties, M. Rallis and M. Theotokis, requiring
the Chamber to pass twenty-seven specified measures, besides
the pending budget, and requiring the Government to recall its
diplomatic representatives from Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and
Rome. The messengers announced that they would return at 2 p.
M. for a reply, and when they did so they were assured that
the commands received would be obeyed. A few hours later the
Premier received a fresh mandate to dismiss his Minister of
the Interior. On this, he and his colleagues attempted to
resign, but were so entreated by the King to remain and submit
to the humiliating situation, rather than bring the country to
a state of complete political wreck, that they did so,
excepting the Minister of the Interior, who withdrew.
In the succeeding four weeks, negotiations appear to have
been effected between the League and the leaders of political
parties, with the result announced as follows in a telegram
from Athens to the American Press, January 28:
"An agreement was reached to-day by the Theotokis party, the
Rallis party, and the Military League to convoke the National
Assembly for a revision of the Constitution, with the
condition that the league shall first be dissolved. The powers
of the National Assembly will be limited as to the sections of
the Constitution to be revised, and no interference with the
royal prerogatives will be permitted."
King George assented to the proposed convocation of a National
Assembly for the revision of the Constitution, though the
existing Constitution would be violated by the method of
procedure to be taken, since the choice seemed to lie between
this and a complete wreckage of constitutional government. A
Cretan leader, M. Venezelo, of high reputation for political
sagacity, came to Athens on invitation and conducted a
settlement of the affair with apparent success. The
Mavromichalis Ministry gave way to another, formed under M.
Dragoumis; a programme of constitutional changes to be laid
before the contemplated National Assembly was agreed upon; the
election of the Assembly was appointed for August next and its
meeting for September, and the dissolution of the Military
League was pledged. Such was the situation in the later days
of March, 1910.
GREEN HILLS, Capture of.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
GREY, ALBERT HENRY GEORGE, EARL:
Governor-General of Canada.
See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1904.
GREY, SIR EDWARD:
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (December), 1905-1906; and
TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
GREY, SIR EDWARD:
Correspondence on American Fishing Rights
in Newfoundland waters.
See (in this Volume)
NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
GREY, SIR EDWARD:
On the Changed Conditions in Europe that make for Peace.
See EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
GREY, SIR EDWARD:
On the Budget of 1909 and the House of Lords.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April-December).
GROCERS’ ASSOCIATION, Dissolution of the.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.
GROSSCUP, JUDGE PETER S.:
Decision in the Case of the
United States v. Swift & Co., et al.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
GROSSCUP, JUDGE PETER S.:
Opinion in Standard Oil Case.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.:
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
GRUITCH, GENERAL:
Head of Radical Servian Ministry.
See (in this Volume)
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: SERVIA: A. D. 1903.
GUANTANAMO:
Coaling and Naval Station leased to the United States.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1903.
GUATEMALA.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA.
GUERRA, COLONEL PINO:
Leader of Insurrection in Cuba.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1906 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
GUIANA, BRITISH: A. D. 1904.
Settlement of Brazilian boundary dispute.
See (in this Volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1904.
GULLY, W. C.:
Resignation of the Speakership of House of Commons.
Elevation to the Peerage.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (JUNE).
GUMMERÉ, S. R.:
American Delegate to the Alegeciras Conference
on the Morocco Question.
See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
GUTHRIE, GEORGE W.:
Mayor of Pittsburg.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
H.
HAAKON VII., King of Norway.
See (in this Volume )
NORWAY: A. D. 1902-1905.
HABIBULLAH, Ameer of Afghanistan.
See (in this Volume)
AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
HAECKEL, Ernst Heinrich.
Eminent German scientist, retired from his Professorship
at Jena University on his 75th birthday, February 10, 1909.
HAGEN-HAGEN, LIEUTENANT:
Tragically ended Greenland Coast Survey.
See (in this Volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION.
HAGOPIAN, H.:
On the Turkish Revolution.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
HAGUE TRIBUNAL, The: A. D. 1902.
Decision of the Pious Fund Question between Mexico and
the United States.
See (in this Volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1902 (MAY).
HAGUE TRIBUNAL, The: A. D. 1903.
Decision on Venezuela Question.
See (in this Volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D 1902-1903.
HAGUE TRIBUNAL, The:
Carnegie Gift to it of a Court House and Library.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1903.
HAGUE, The: A. D. 1907.
The Second Peace Conference.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
HAICHENG, RUSSIAN EVACUATION OF.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
HAKKI BEY: Grand Vizier.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (MAY-DECEMBER).
{302}
HALDANE, Richard B.:
Secretary of State for War.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
HALE vs. HENKEL, The case of.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1906.
HAMID EDDIN, Sheik of the Hadramaut:
His claims to the Caliphate, against the Sultan.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1905.
HAMLIN, Reverend Dr. Cyrus.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: TURKEY, &c.
HANKAU-SZE-CHUAN RAILWAY LOAN.
The question of American participation.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1904-1909.
HANSEN, Ole.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1901.
HARBIN,
KHARBIN: A. D. 1905.
Opened to all commerce.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1905 (DECEMBER).
HARCOURT, VERNON.
See VERNON-HARCOURT.
HARDEN, Maximilian:
The Trials of.
See (in this Volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1908.
HARDIE, KEIR.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906;
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1903; and
SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
HARRIMAN, Edward H.:
His extraordinary Accumulation and Organization of
Railway Properties.
His death.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
HARRIMAN, Mrs. E. H.
Gift of land to New York for a State Park.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909-1910.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY:
Interchanges of Professors with French and German Universities.
See (in this Volume)
EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.
HASSAN FEHMI EFFENDI,
Assassination of.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
HATSUSE,
Sinking of the.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
HATTI HUMAYUN, The Turkish.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
HAUSA LAND.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1903 (NIGERIA).
HAVANA: A. D. 1907.
Population.
See (in this Volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1907.
HAY, John:
Secretary of State.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905, and 1905-1909.
HAY, John:
Negotiation of the Hay-Bond Reciprocity Treaty.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1902-1905.
HAY, John:
Negotiation of Treaty with China to open two new Ports
to Foreign Trade.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1903 (MAY-OCTOBER).
HAY, John:
Honorary President of Second International Conference
of American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
HAY, John:
Proclamation of his death.
See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905 (JULY).
HAY-PAUNCEFOTE CANAL TREATY, Interoceanic.
See (in this Volume)
PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1901-1902.
HAITI: A. D. 1901-1902.
Participation in Second International Conference of
American Republics.
See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
HAITI: A. D. 1902.
Revolution and Civil War produced by a Blunder of Law.
Resignation of President Sam.
Election of General Nord Alexis.
An outbreak of revolution in Haiti occurred under singular
circumstances on the 12th of May, 1902. As related in a
despatch of a few days later by Mr. W F. Powell, United States
Minister to Haiti, the circumstances were these: When, in
April, 1896. General Theresias Simon Sam was elected President
of the Republic (see, under HAYTI, in Volume VI. of this
work), on the sudden death of President Hypolite, "Congress
enacted a law requiring him to enter upon the duties of the
Presidential office at once, and to remain in office until May
15, 1903. This law, it seems now," wrote Mr. Powell, "was not
constitutional, as the constitution states: ‘That upon the
death, resignation, malfeasance in office, or removal
therefrom of the President before the 15th of May (in any
year) the cabinet or council of ministers is charged with
these functions until the 15th of May, when the newly elected
President shall assume the duties of the Presidency; but if a
President should accept office or enter upon the duties of the
same prior to this time (15th of May), then his term of office
must expire on the 15th of May of the year preceding the time
that it actually expired, thus not allowing the incumbent to
remain in office the full seven years, the time for which he
was elected.’
"For some reason this provision of the constitution was not
thought of, or else forgotten, at the time General Sam was
elected. No mention was made of this section until about a
year ago, when the question was launched upon the public view
by the enemies of the Government. The more this question was
discussed the more potent it became, until it occupied the
attention of all classes to the exclusion of all other
matters. … The several political arrests and the exile of many
persons within the past two years have been on account of this
discussion, they demanding that this article of the
constitution should be literally followed, the Government, on
its part, believing that in the arrest and exile of all such
persons all discussions and agitation of this matter would
cease. But this rigor on the part of the Government produced,
instead of friends, enemies, who were daily gaining strength.
"At the several interviews I had with the President up to the
time I left for Santo Domingo (February 10) he stated that it
was his intention to remain in office until he had finished
his term (to May 15, 1903) and that he would not resign or
cease to be President prior to that time. He had also
impressed this fact upon the members of his cabinet up to May
1 of the present year, when it was learned that it was his
intention to resign at an early day." This announcement
brought a number of candidates into the field, and Mr. Powell,
on returning to Port au Prince on the 11th of May, found a
precarious situation there. He secured an interview with
President Sam the following morning, and "was informed that he
had determined to resign, that his resignation was ready to be
sent to Congress, that he was tired of this constant
agitation, and that he would leave by the French steamer then
in port for France, where he would pass the remainder of his
life in quietness and peace; that since it was the wish of the
people to have a new President he would not oppose them, but
would abide by article 93 of the national constitution, and if
the chambers did not elect a President to-day, Monday, the
country would be without a President."
{303}
One of the candidates, General Leconte, a member of the
Government about to be dissolved, "felt certain that he would
be elected, as he had sufficient votes pledged in both houses
to elect him. This news spread rapidly, the streets became
full of armed citizens wending their way toward the chambers
to prevent, forcibly if necessary, his election. At first it
was difficult to get the members together. The streets in the
neighborhood of the legislative halls were thronged with
people and the Government troops, the latter to protect the
members in case of violence. Several secret meetings of the
members were held. At last the doors were opened, and as soon
as opened every available space not occupied by the two houses
was filled by the friends and foes of General Leconte. As the
balloting was about to commence some one in the chambers fired
his revolver. In an instant shooting commenced from all parts
of the room. One or two were killed and the same number
wounded. The members all sought shelter in the most available
places they could find—under benches or desks. Others forgot
the way they entered and sought exit by means of the windows.
By this means the populace prevented the election of General
Leconte, forcibly adjourned the chambers without date, and
dispersed the members of both chambers. The Government troops
immediately retired to the palace, the arsenal, the barracks,
or the arrondissement, as it was thought that an attack would
be immediately made on each place.
"A committee of safety was at once formed to safeguard the
interests of the city, and as the news reached the other
cities of the Republic similar committees were named with like
duties. The next object was to secure the palace, arsenal, and
the Government buildings. A concerted attack was made on each
of the above places at 10 p. m., lasting about twenty minutes,
in which the Government troops were the victors. It is
supposed that in these engagements about one hundred persons
were either killed or wounded."
The next day, on the ex-President’s request, Mr. Powell, as
dean of the diplomatic corps, arranged with his associates to
escort General and Mrs. Sam, together with General Leconte, to
the steamer on which they wished to embark, and their
departure was undisturbed.
On the 26th of May a Provisional Government, with General
Boisrond Canal for its President, was established by delegates
sent from "the several sections of the Republic." Elections
for a new Chamber of Deputies were appointed to be held early
in July; though the Constitution had declared that such
elections "must occur during the first weeks in the month of
January." This gave a fine opening for future troubles.
Meantime, irregular skirmishing, preliminary to positive civil
war, was bringing all business to an end. On the 26th of July
Mr. Powell reported to Washington that civil war had been
declared. The contest for the Presidency seemed narrowed to
two candidates. General Nord Alexis, Minister of War and
Marine in the Provisional Government, and Mr. A. Firmin, whose
cause was supported by the Haytian navy, of two gunboats,
commanded by Admiral Killick. It is needless to give details
of the hostilities that ensued.
The elections were determined and the Chamber of Deputies was
organized about the 20th of August. The Deputies had then to
choose the Senatorial body, and the strife of factions among
them prevented that election until late in the year, when the
forces of the Provisional Government had achieved successes
which brought the civil war practically to an end. General
Nord Alexis, who had been campaigning for months, returned
triumphantly with his army to Port au Prince on the 14th of
December; was acclaimed President by the Army on the 17th, and
was formally elected by the National Assembly on the 21st. He
was then reported to be 85 years old.
HAITI: A. D. 1908.
Revolution once more.
Overthrow and expulsion of President Nord Alexis.
General Antoine Simon his elected successor.
The Government under President Nord Alexis was maintained for
six years, by its own unsparing use of power, it would seem,
rather than by the good will of the country. Revolutionary
projects had been crushed with prompt vigor before they had
much chance of development, until November, 1908, when one,
led by a displaced military commander, General Antoine Simon,
ran so rapid a course that it arrived at complete success on
the 2d of the following month. The aged but indomitable Nord
Alexis strove hard to resist it, even to the last inch of
fighting in his own palace; but Port au Prince rose against
him; his partisans fell away; his soldiers deserted; and
finally, on the afternoon of December 2d, he consented to be
taken on board a French training-ship, then in port. In doing
this there was difficulty in saving him from an angry city
mob. The escape of the fallen President was described in a
Port au Prince despatch to the Associated Press as follows:
"So serious was the situation that the French minister, M.
Carteron, and other foreign representatives, with members of a
specially appointed committee, forced themselves upon the
President, who finally consented to withdraw. Shouts greeted
him as he stepped to his carriage. M. Carteron, carrying the
French tri-color, threw the folds of the flag over the
shoulders of the de posed president to protect him. All along
the route the people who lined the streets shouted, jeered and
cursed the fallen President, but when the landing stage was
reached, the mob lost all restraint. The scene was tragic and
shameful. Infuriated women broke through the cordon of troops
and shrieked the coarsest insults into the very face of the
President, who strove bravely to appear undismayed. They
hurled themselves, fighting with hands and feet, against the
soldiers, who found difficulty in forcing them back. One woman
with a murderous knife, got to the President’s side and made a
sweep at his body, but the blow fell short, and, before she
could follow it with another, she was seized by a soldier. A
man struck the President a glancing blow with his fist on the
neck. Alexis, shaking his head, so, turned to M. Carteron and
said: ‘I told you your excellency.’
{304}
"To clear space, the troops fired several volleys over the
heads of the mob. For a moment, they gave way, and Alexis,
with the French colors draped about him, was bustled into a
skiff, in tow of a steam launch, his disordered suite tumbling
in after him. As the launch drew away, three Haytian gunboats
and the American warships in the harbor fired a salute to the
fallen President.
"A trunk which was left behind on the precipitate departure of
the President and his party from the wharf, was seized upon by
the rioters and broken open. It was found to contain some
$10,000 in gold and 20,000 Haytian gourdes. The specie was
scattered about and promptly pillaged."
According to a despatch of the next day, "riot and pillage
swept through the night following the flight of the fallen
President, Nord Alexis. The populace, maddened by a taste of
revolt, gave themselves over to absolute license, They looted
stores and residences and then fought among themselves over
the booty until an armed force, hastily gathered together by
General Poitevin, fired a volley into the mob and finally
drove them into hiding. In all, twelve persons were killed and
many wounded before order was restored. …
"Past 90 years of age—how many years beyond nobody knows—Nord
Alexis had faced his foes with the strength and determination
of a man in the very prime of life. To-day he said: ‘The
courageous conduct of M. Carteron (the French minister) saved
my life.’ … The President was broken-hearted over the attitude
of his people, of whose hostility he was entirely ignorant.
‘They always cheered me when I appealed in the streets,’ he
said mournfully, ‘and I have always labored for their good.’
"He protested against the ‘legend’ that he ever had shown any
enmity toward the whites, and, for the first time, expressed
his views with regard to the summary executions which took
place on March 15th last, when many men were shot to death by
order of General Leconte. He had always been convinced, he
said, that the men had been killed during an attack upon the
palace. His officials and those upon whom he depended had kept
back the truth from him.
"With regard to his destination, Nord Alexis said that he
would wait until he could be transported to Jamaica, Saint
Thomas or Martinique."
General Simon and his victorious army of rebellion entered the
capital on the 5th. Some degree of order had been restored by
a Committee of Safety, under ex-President Legitime, but fresh
strifes were imminent between rival candidates for the vacant
presidency. Simon, with his military following, brushed them
aside, and obtained a unanimous election by the Haitian
Congress on the 17th, assuming office as President on the
20th.
HAITI: A. D. 1909.
The Haitian People.
The splendid industry of the Women.
The curse of the country in its Military Government.
"Four-fifths of the Haitians—the peasantry of the country,
that is to say—are hard working, peaceable country people.
These four-fifths of 3,000,000 are entirely negro in race, and
probably represent a mingling of West African types from
Senegambia, Dahomé, and the Congo. It is a race which
exhibits, away from the towns, a fine physical development;
its skin colour is much darker and the negro type more
pronounced than in the United States. … The women are the best
part of the nation They are splendid, unremitting toilers. In
the face of all discouragements with, which a bad Government
clouds their existence the women of Haiti almost remind one of
certain patient types of ant or termite, who, as fast as you
destroy their labour of months or days, hasten to repair it
with unslacking energy.
"The curse of Haiti from the day she established her
independence in 1804 to the present time is the tyrannical and
wasteful Government of the military party. … Scarcely a
President in the history of Haiti has not been a military man
and the favourite leader, for the time being, of the major
portion of the army. … That President Antoine Simon will
follow in the bloody footsteps of all his Presidential
predecessors is improbable. He is a man of obviously kindly
nature, with a record of 22 years’ essentially clement
government of the great southern province of Haiti; but he is
an old man of imperfect education, and though he may turn out
a complete surprise, yet so far he has done nothing to improve
the conditions of political elections. The whole power of the
country is still entirely based on the soldiers."
Sir Harry Johnston,
in The London Times, April 13, 1909.
HEARST, William R.:
Candidacy for Mayor of New York.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905 and 1909.
HEARST, William R.:
Candidacy for Governor of New York State.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910.
HEDERVARY MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903.
HENEY, FRANCIS J.
See (in this Volume)
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: SAN FRANCISCO,
and UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
HENRIQUES, CAMPOS.
See (in this Volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
HENRY PHIPPS INSTITUTE.
See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: TUBERCULOSIS.
HENRY, Prince of Prussia:
Visit to the United States.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
HEPBURN ACT.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1870-1908, and 1906-1909.
HERMANN, BINGER:
U. S. Commissioner of the Land Office, involved in Land Frauds.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
HERO FUNDS.
See (in this Volume)
CARNEGIE HERO FUNDS.
HERREROS, The.
See (in this Volume)
AFRICA: A. D. 1904-1905, and
GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.
HERRING, A. M.
See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: AERONAUTICS.
HERVÉ, Gustave:
Apostle of Anti-Militarism in France.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
HERZEGOVINA.
See (in this Volume)
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
HETCH HETCHY PROJECT, The.
See (in this Volume)
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1901-1909.
HICKS-BEACH, SIR MICHAEL:
Retirement from the English Chancellorship of the Exchequer.
See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JULY).
HIGHBINDER ASSOCIATIONS, CHINESE.
See (in this Volume)
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1902.
{305}
HILL, David Jayne:
Commissioner Plenipotentiary to the Second Peace Conference.
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
HILL, James J.:
His connection with the Northern Securities Case.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.
HILMI PASHA.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903; 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER), and after.
HINDU DISAFFECTION.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
HINDU IMMIGRATION:
The Resistance to in South Africa, Australia, and elsewhere.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS.
HISGEN, Thomas L.:
Nominated for President of the United States.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
HITCHCOCK, Ethan Allen:
Secretary of the Interior.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905, 1903-1906, and 1905-1909.
HITCHCOCK, Frank H.:
Postmaster-General.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
HOFF, JACOBUS HENRICUS VAN’T.
See (in this Volume)
NOBEL PRIZES.
HOHENLOHE, Prince.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
"HOLDING COMPANY," The:
Decision of its Illegality as a method of Combination
between Corporations.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.
HOLLAND.
See (in this Volume and Volume III)
NETHERLANDS.
HOLSTEIN, Herr von:
On the German "Navy Fever."
See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
HOLSTEIN-LEDREBORG MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1905-1909.
HOLY SEE.
See (in this Volume and Volume IV)
PAPACY.
"HOLY WAR," IN ARABIA.
See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1905.
HOMEL, JEWISH MASSACRE AT.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904.
HONDURAS.
See (in this Volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA.
HORUP, M.
See (in this Volume)
DENMARK: A. D. 1901.
HOTTENTOTS, REVOLT OF THE.
See (in this Volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.
HOURS OF LABOR.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902;
GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
Also,
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR; and
LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES AND COST OF LIVING.
HOUSING AND TOWN-PLANNING ACT.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIAL BETTERMENT: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
HSIHOYEN, BATTLE OF.
See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
HSUAN-TUNG:
Child-Emperor of China.
See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1908 (NOVEMBER).
HUDSON BAY REGION: A. D. 1903-1904.
Canadian measures to establish Sovereignty over Land and Sea.
See (in this Volume )
CANADA: A. D. 1903-1904.
HUDSON BAY REGION:
Projected Railway from the Canadian Northwest.
See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: CANADA: A. D. 1908-1909.
HUDSON-FULTON COMMEMORATION.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.
HUDSON TUNNELS.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900-1909.
HUGHES, Charles Evans:
Counsel of the Legislative Joint Committee to Investigate
Life Insurance Companies in New York.
See (in this Volume)
INSURANCE, LIFE.
HUGHES, Charles Evans:
Governor of the State of New York.
See (in this Volume)
NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910.
Also,
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES, and PUBLIC UTILITIES.
HUGHES, Charles Evans:
On the Proposed Income Tax Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.
See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (JULY).
HUMPHREY, Judge:
Immunity Decision in "Beef Trust" Case.
See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
HUNGARY.
See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
HYDE, Dr. Douglas:
Founder of Gaelic League.
See (in this Volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907.
HYDE, HENRY B.:
Founder of the Equitable Life Assurance Society.
See (in this Volume)
INSURANCE, LIFE.
HYDE, James Hazen:
Relations to the Equitable Life Assurance Society.
See (in this Volume)
INSURANCE, LIFE.
I.
ICELAND:
Its Ancient Claims to Nationality.
Within the last few years the Icelanders have been asserting
their ancient right to a national life of their own so
seriously that the King of Denmark has exerted himself to
soothe their discontent with but partial success. For many
historical reasons Iceland ought to have an independent
standing among the European states. For some of those reasons
its people seem fairly entitled to recognition as the foremost
representatives of the old Norse or Scandinavian race. Their
ancestors were men of the best blood of Norway, who quitted
that country in the ninth century and took possession of the
arctic island, because they would not submit to the despotism
established by Harold the Fairhaired. That they took with them
the best culture of their race and time is proved by the fact
that almost everything we know of the old Norse literature,
and of the mythology and history embedded in it, was preserved
by their pens. Learning was cherished and cultivated among
them from the first: and they had the capacity and the spirit
for self-government from the first. Before the end of the
tenth century they had adopted a republican constitution and
founded a commonwealth which endured for about 300 years. This
antedated the rise of the city republics of Italy and the free
cantons of the Swiss by one or two centuries at the least.
The Icelandic republic was destroyed at last by feuds among
its leading families, which invited Norwegian intervention
from time to time, and subjected the island to the parent
kingdom in the end. Late in the fourteenth century the three
Scandinavian kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were
joined in a union which did not endure.
{306}
Its dissolution left Norway, with Iceland as a dependency,
attached to Denmark, and that connection was maintained till
1814. Norway was then transferred from the Danish to the
Swedish crown; but Iceland was still kept as a part of the
dominion of the Danish King. Norway regained national
distinctness and independence in 1905, and now it is to be
hoped that Iceland will have its just turn.
The island has never been governed as a mere province of
Denmark, but always under its own laws. Its old representative
assembly, the Althing, was suspended during most of the first
half of the last century, but revived in 1845 as a merely
consultative assembly. As such it voiced very steadily the
claim of the Icelanders to more of autonomy and political
distinctness than their Danish lord was willing to yield. In
1874, however, at the 1,000th anniversary of the Icelandic
settlement, he granted a constitution which reinvested the
Althing with legislative powers, and met the wishes of the
island in other important ways; but not so far as to produce
content.
IDAHO: A. D. 1905-1907.
Murder of ex-Governor Steunenberg.
Trial and acquittal of Haywood.
See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1899-1907.
IDE, HENRY CLAY:
Governor-General of the Philippine Islands.
See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1906-1907.
IGNATIEFF, COUNT ALEXEI:
Assassination.
See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1906.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1899.
Enactment of the first Juvenile Court Law.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
IMAM, ALI.
See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
----------IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Start--------
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Australia: A. D. 1909.
The needs of the country.
The attitude of the people toward Immigration.
The difficulties.
Speaking at a dinner in his honor, given in London, after his
return from five years of service as Governor-General of
Australia, Lord Northcote touched on what he described as "the
Aaron’s rod of all political questions in Australia, which, if
it does not swallow up the others, at all events the others
depend upon it,"—meaning the increase of Australia’s
population. As to the attitude of Australia to the immigration
question he said: "No doubt, from time to time certain
over-zealous officials have made mistakes which have
prejudiced Australia in the eyes of the British public, but I
do not believe that anything in the nature of a fixed desire
to keep out men who are able to sustain themselves by their
labour has ever existed. Of course, Australia has her number
of unemployables, and is not prepared to import more from the
old country. Then I come to the very important question of
coloured immigration, and that is a question we should look at
from an Australian as well as from a British point of view. …
"Suppose Australia or Canada confronted by the presence of a
large number of Asiatics, men of ability enough to hold their
own, men who, if they come there, come to stay, and it is
quite conceivable from an Australian point of view that if
they do not rigidly secure themselves against the possibility
of being swamped by Asiatic labour, they may be presented with
a problem even more serious than is the great negro question
in the United States. I say this to show that there is more to
be said for the Australian point of view than some people are
inclined to suppose. Of course a great deal depends upon
whether the huge northern territory can be populated by white
men. Upon that I hesitate to pronounce a definite opinion. I
believe it is possible for a white man, if he is steady,
sober, and careful, to colonize for a time this great tropical
land; but it is a very serious matter how far the climate is