Chapter 382: , Laws of 1889, to read as follows (10)

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.