Chapter VI: Part SEVEN: Continued (4)

May the difference of our beliefs in peace matters in no respect
embitter our old friendship, but do not attempt any more to free me
from my worries; it is in vain. Only he can mitigate them who shares
them and helps me in the battle, but helps not because he is “won by
personal charm,” but because he believes in the possibility, in the
necessity, of this battle.

B. S.

At this period I had still other political joys and sorrows. The persecutions of Armenians in Turkey were ever assuming more grewsome proportions. The Balkan tribes, in their distress, put their hope in the peace societies. One day I was surprised by the following dispatch from Rustchuk:

June 28

Bertha von Suttner, Vienna:

A meeting attended by more than two thousand persons was held to-day
to express the wish that the twenty-third article of the Treaty of
Berlin might be made operative in Turkey. It was voted in the name of
the freedom of all the peoples of Turkey, and with a view to putting
an end to the continual shedding of blood and preventing a possible
European war, to urge you to enlist the services of the Peace League
in recommending to the European governments the enforcement of Article
23 of the Berlin Treaty.

The Macedonian Committee in Rustchuk for the
Freedom of European Turkey
Koptchef

The insurrection of the unhappy Cubans, and the Draconic method of subjugation employed by the Spaniards, was a real paroxysm of the system of force. General Weyler, who was hated with a deadly hatred by the Cubans on account of his cruelties, was sent over as Governor General. On his arrival he issued a proclamation; the neat document is “sharp,” that must be confessed:

The death penalty for promulgation, directly or indirectly, of news
favorable to the insurrection; death for assisting in smuggling arms
or for failing to prevent same; death for the telegraph operator who
communicates news of the war to third persons; death for any one who
verbally or through the press or in any other way lowers the prestige
of Spain; death for any one who utters words favorable to the rebels,
etc.,—these punishments to be determined by a court-martial without
appeal, and all verdicts to be immediately executed.

Thereupon great indignation in the United States regarding the Spanish dictatorship.

And now the joyful things which my diary contains:

A great event has happened: a professor in Würzburg,—his name is on all lips,—Professor Röntgen, has discovered a way of photographing the invisible by invisible rays. O thou wonderful world of magic! What splendid surprises hast thou still in store for us? Invisible rays which disclose the hidden—utterly new horizons open before us. Thus science enriches the world without having caused any increase of poverty or destruction. This is the true expander of empire,—a contrast to the sword which enriches one person only by what it has snatched from another, mangling him into the bargain!

And another joy I found in the progress of the Anglo-American arbitration treaty for the settlement of all differences, without any reference to the limitations that later treaties contain. It was not yet adopted and ratified, but the negotiations were powerfully urged on both sides of the ocean. The editors of the _Review of Reviews_ (William T. Stead) and the _Daily Chronicle_, in coöperation with the English pacifists, established inquiries, meetings, demonstrations, petitions—in short, a popular movement, in which the most distinguished men of the day were enlisted and induced to take part. At the meeting which, on the third of March, brought six thousand people to Queen’s Hall, sympathetic letters were read from Gladstone, Balfour, Rosebery, Herbert Spencer, and others. The resolve of this meeting was communicated officially by its chairman, Sir James Stansfeld, a former member of the Cabinet and friend of Lord Salisbury’s, to the latter, whereupon the Premier replied that the matter had the sanction of the government. On Easter Sunday three English Church dignitaries issued a manifesto to the people. The issuer applied directly to Cardinal Rampolla, and he replied with the approval of the pope.

On the other side of the ocean there was the same movement in favor of the treaty. A national convention is called in Washington for the twenty-second and twenty-third of April for the same purpose, and the signatories are statesmen, bishops, judges, governors. President Cleveland is well known to be inspired with the same desire; in short, the conclusion of the treaty may confidently be expected to take place very soon; and a new epoch of the history of civilization will be thereby initiated.

Now death overtook the former French Prime Minister, in whom our movement had such a firm support,—Jules Simon. My friend Frédéric Passy was especially affected at this bereavement. It is a matter of common knowledge that Jules Simon had won the sympathies of Emperor William II.

I have a letter from the famous statesman and philosopher which shows clearly with what conviction and passionate eagerness he fought against the institution of war. I had written urging him to attend a festival meeting of our Union in Vienna, and received the following reply:

Senate, Paris, May 24, 1892

Madam:

You ask if I will come to the meeting at Vienna. Alas! no, and I am
very sorry that I cannot. I have taken upon me all kinds of
obligations which are devouring my life without any too great
advantage to the causes I am serving. You thoughtlessly accept an
engagement and discover the next morning that if you had not alienated
your liberty you could make a better use of your energies.

I could do nothing which would be more in line with my ideas and my
tastes, if it be permitted to speak of one’s inclinations when it is a
question of duty; no, I could do nothing that would satisfy me better
than to go to Vienna and fight under your leadership and that of your
friends against this eternal war from which we are suffering in the
midst of perfect peace, and which is becoming a disease endemic in the
whole human race.

I know perfectly well that I should not say anything which has not
been said and which ought not to be repeated again this time. I do not
blush for our cause because of its antiquity, nor because of the
necessity which rests on its defenders of reiterating unceasingly the
same arguments and the same complaints. It is like a Catholic litany,
which ceaselessly repeats the same words to the same music, and which,
in its monotony, is none the less an energetic and passionate prayer.
I should have liked to mingle my voice in that chorus of thousands of
voices which will be raised in protest against the collective
assassinations, against the official massacres, against the
destruction of human life and property in this horrible hell.

As I am unable to go there and raise my voice, I find some
consolation, madam, in sending you my lamentation; and permit me to
add to it my perfect admiration for all you are doing, and the homage
of my respect.

Jules Simon

XLIX
THE SEVENTH WORLD’S PEACE CONGRESS AND THE SEVENTH INTERPARLIAMENTARY
CONFERENCE IN BUDAPEST

General Türr’s visit at Harmannsdorf · Anecdotes from his life ·
Garibaldi’s appeal to the governments · Our journey to Budapest ·
Reception and preliminary festival · Opening of the Congress · From
Türr’s address · The historical Millennial Exposition · Élie Ducommun
gives a report on the year’s events · Debate: Armenian horrors · Address
to the pope · Letter from Dr. Ofner · Excursion to the Margareteninsel ·
The youngest member of the Congress · Exciting debate about dueling ·
Nepluief and his institution · Deputation from the Society for the
Protection of Animals · Conclusion of the Congress · Preliminary
festival of the Conference · Soirée at the Parkklub · Opening session in
the House of Magnates · Second session · Soirée at the Prime Minister’s
· From the protocol · Apponyi on the participation of Russia in the
conferences · The Russian consul Vasily and his action · Excursion into
the future · Visit at Maurus Jókai’s · Gala operatic performance · End
of the Conference · Opening of the “Iron Gate”

Now we were getting ready to start for Budapest, where, during the Millennial Festival, the Seventh World’s Peace Congress and the Seventh Interparliamentary Conference were to be held.

General Türr was chosen as chairman of the Congress. On the twenty-sixth of August we were surprised by a dispatch from Türr announcing that he was coming to Harmannsdorf. He had arrived in Vienna from Rome, and before continuing his journey to Budapest he wanted to fulfill a promise made long before to visit us in our home.

It gave us great delight, and in order to show it we prepared a grand reception for him. Before the entrance to the palace a triumphal arch was erected, adorned with the inscription

WELCOME, STEPHAN TÜRR

and when the carriage that brought him from the station, whither My Own had gone to meet him, drove up, a double line of our foresters performed a fanfare. Türr was greatly pleased with the fun.

Although he was then seventy-one years old, he was as fresh and martial and elastic in his bearing as if he had been only fifty at most. At our house he added another to his conquests. Not to speak of myself, our pretty niece Maria Louise, who was twenty-two, was so fascinated by him that she begged a cousin who was a painter and happened to be with us to make a life-size portrait of the handsome old warrior. The portrait was painted and she hung it in her boudoir.

My diary has the following entry under date of August 26:

On arising I find a dispatch from Türr. Wire reply and make preparations. Arrival at four o’clock. Much fun over triumphal gate, banners, and fanfare; looks fine. At the very first, long chat in the billiard room about the Congress. Still much to be done in preparation, but the larger part has already been begun by his friends, and through his influence many advances by the government. Dinner with the whole family. Then black coffee in the garden. Very interesting stories. On the whole, he is full of gayety, goodness, and wit—like all men of the highest distinction who have been condemned to death two or three times!

Of the anecdotes from his experiences, which he intermingled with his conversation, I jotted down a few afterwards in a condensed form:

In the year 1868 he came to Vienna, commissioned by King Victor Emmanuel, whose adjutant general he was, to bring this message to Emperor Franz Joseph: “Tell the Emperor that in me he has not only a good relative but also a good friend.” Türr told us in what a friendly manner the Emperor received the message and the messenger—although he had once been proscribed and under the ban as a revolutionist.

Türr had no specially good things to say of Bismarck. From his conversations with the Chancellor he quoted the following remarks: “After supper I brought Rechberg to the point of letting me buy Lauenburg—I wanted to prove that this Austrian would sell what he had no right to.” And again: “I have not succeeded very well in persuading my king that we must wage war against Austria, but I have brought him to the very edge of the ditch, and now he must leap.”

Türr was once talking with a Chinaman about civilization. “Do you know,” remarked the man from the Middle Kingdom, “that your _liberté_, _fraternité_, _égalité_, are very fine, but a fourth thing is necessary.”

“And that is—?”

_Un harmonisateur._

“What is that?”

The Chinaman, making a gesture suggestive of whipping, said, _Le bambou_.

Türr is also somewhat of the opinion that it would be a good thing if men could have some of their bad qualities whipped out of them, especially some of their stupidity. _La bêtise humaine est in-com-men-su-ra-ble_ ... and _that_ word is still too short!

Ach Götter,
Schneidt’s Bretter!

With this sigh of resignation he used to conclude his observations over this or that piece of immeasurable stupidity among men.

He told us ever so much about his life as a soldier. He had already passed his fiftieth year in military service, for he had entered the army in 1842. During this half century he had seen so much that was horrible on the various battlefields, that he had consequently become an enemy of war:

It was in May, 1860. We were marching with Garibaldi’s thousand heroes
against Palermo. In the neighborhood of the market place of Partenio
we had a glimpse of something that filled the hardest-hearted of us
with horror. Beside the road a dozen Bourbon soldiers lay dead, and a
pack of dogs were gnawing at their bodies.... We approached and saw
that the soldiers had been burned. Garibaldi expressed his indignation
at this in a terrible outbreak of rage. He could hardly hold in till
he entered the little town. The inhabitants received him with joy, but
he shouted to the exulting people in a voice trembling with wrath:

“I have seen here a barbarous deed—the partisans of freedom have no
right to give way to such inhumane cruelty....”

The people listened in deep silence to the general’s outburst of
passion. Finally some one came forward and said:

“We must acknowledge that we have done wrong, but before you condemn
us, listen to what happened here; perhaps you will find our action
comprehensible....”

And the people conducted the general to a group of houses. He was
taken into four or five of these houses and shown a heap of women and
children, all scorched and burned to cinders. “This is what the
Bourbon soldiers have done,” they cried; “they drove the women and
children into these houses, set the houses on fire, and would not let
one escape. They guarded the doors until the wretched creatures
struggled with death in the flames. We heard their screams of agony
and hurried to help them; but it was too late.... In our bitter
indignation we could only wreak our vengeance for the innocent victims
by hurling the monsters into the fire in turn, and then we brought
them out into the road.”

Türr told us also of the document that Garibaldi, after the campaign was concluded, sent to all the crowned heads of Europe, urging them to form a league of peace. No notice was taken of this action and it is generally unknown. The only trace of it still remaining is the remark in the encyclopedia under the name Garibaldi: “Brave, patriotic, disinterested, warm-hearted, but _without deep political insight, a visionary_.” But it was really General Türr who suggested that attempt. Again I quote his own words:

One evening at Naples I was with Garibaldi on the balcony. The
general, according to his usual custom, was contemplating the sky full
of glorious stars. For a long time he was silent; at last he said:

“Dear friend, we have again done only half a job. God knows how much
blood will still have to be shed before the unity of Italy is
established.”

“May be ... but, general, you can be contented with the great result
that we have brought about within six months. The shedding of much
blood might be avoided if better views should obtain among the
rulers.... If, as far as it were possible, an agreement might be
entered into by the European countries; if what Henry the Fourth and
Elizabeth, Queen of England, centuries ago dreamed, and what Minister
Sully so beautifully described, could be brought about,—who knows but
the king’s noble idea might even then have been realized, if a
fanatic’s dagger had not struck him down. But it would seem as if the
time had now come to carry it out, so as to save Europe from other
dreadful massacres and battles. General, you have accomplished a great
work; you would seem to be the very one to bring an appeal to the
rulers and the nations in the interest of peace and confederation.”

We talked for a long time about this, and the very next morning
Garibaldi brought the appeal which, with a few modifications, we sent
to the powers. Since that time I have often had that appeal printed.
Whenever opportunity has offered I have striven to call the attention
of those in power and the great public to Garibaldi’s lofty ideas. And
now, when the peace workers and the representatives of the nations are
about to assemble on the occasion of the Millennial Festival, I am
going once more to bring forth the never-to-be-forgotten leader’s
inspired words of exhortation. It will not fail to be interesting—amid
the conservative tendencies—to hear ideas of the so-called
“revolutionists and subverters,” dictated as they were by the purest
philanthropy; for those men sought to overthrow nothing except the
dikes that block freedom and progress.

General Türr pulled out of his pocket a copy of Garibaldi’s appeal and handed it to me. It is an interesting document, and it makes one realize how thoughts which are regarded as new have been conceived many years back, and how they are swallowed up in forgetfulness, no matter how eloquently they may have been spoken. Ever again and ever again they have to emerge, like something new, surprising people, until at last they become common property.

In this appeal Garibaldi points to the enormous armaments of the sixties (what would he say to-day!); he laments that in the midst of so-called civilization we fill our lives with mutual threats against one another. He proposes an alliance of all the states of Europe; then there would be no more fighting forces on land and sea (that we should be now building air-fleets he did not foresee), and the enormous funds that have to be withdrawn from the necessities of the nations for unproductive, death-dealing purposes might be made available for ends that would improve property and lift the level of human life; these latter are then enumerated.

The document also gives satisfactory answers to possible objections. “What will become of the multitude of men who are serving in the army and in the navy?”

Rulers would have to study institutions of common utility if their
minds were no longer absorbed in ideas of conquest and devastation....
In consequence of the advance in industry and the greater stability of
commerce, the merchant service would soon take care of the whole
personnel of the navy; the immense and innumerable works and
undertakings which would spring up because of peace, the alliance, and
security, would employ twice as many men as are serving in the army.

The appeal concludes with warm words addressed to those princes to whom “the sacred duty is intrusted of doing good and cherishing that greatness which is higher than ephemeral false greatness,—that true greatness the foundation of which would be the love and the gratitude of the nations.”

General Türr returned that same evening to Vienna and went the next day to Budapest, where he finished the laborious preparations for the Congress.

Two days before the Congress opened we three followed him there. I say “we three,” for we took our niece Maria Louise with us; we wanted her to enjoy this journey and the social festivities with us.

I see us on board a Danube steamer. It was a beautiful, sunny September day. There was quite a little peace band of us,—Malaria, Dr. Kunwald, the Grollers, husband and wife, and Countess Pötting, “die Hex”; of friends from abroad,—Frédéric Passy, Gaston Moch and his wife, Yves Guyot the former Minister, publisher of _Le Siècle_ and a great free trader before the Lord, the Grelix couple, and M. Claparède from Switzerland.

So we had already a little Congress on deck; even at meals our company clung together. We passed by Pressburg, by Gran with its proud episcopal palace, and at Waitzen a deputation from Budapest which had been sent out to meet us came aboard,—three members of the Congress committee, and with them a reporter of the _Pesti Napló_ (the “_Budapest Journal_”). It was already evening and all the lights were ablaze when we slowly came into port. On the dock stood other members of the committee, among them Director Kemény, who greeted us with an address; and gathered about was a dense throng shouting _Éljen!_ (“Hail!”) at the top of their voices. Carriages in waiting whirled us all to the Hotel Royal, where General Türr and a number of other colleagues were already awaiting us. That was the day of our arrival, September 15. By the entries in my diary I will now bring in review before my memory the week of the Budapest Congress and Conference.

September 16. Interviews the whole morning. Leopold Katscher brings me newspapers and tells about the preliminary labors. Luncheon in the Hotel Hungaria given by General Türr with only a few intimate friends. Visits with Karolyi, Banffy, and others. In the evening of this day before the opening of the Congress all the delegates are invited to a reception in the great drawing-rooms of the Hotel Royal. Türr and Count Eugen Zichy, the great Asiatic traveler, act as hosts. At supper various addresses: Pierantoni, a giant in stature, with a stentorian voice, speaks in Italian, and as fascinatingly as if he were a famous reader rather than a famous teacher of international law. I make the acquaintance of Dr. Ludwig Stein, professor in Bern University, whose philosophical feuilletons in the press have long been a delight to me. Frédéric Passy and Frédéric Bajer speak, and the “Peace Fury” is also obliged to take part.

September 17. Opening session in the council chamber of the new City Hall. Before the door, in the entrance hall, and on the stairs are stationed pandours, splendid in their lace-adorned uniforms and armor. It reminds one of the reception at the Capitol. The hall is packed. The galleries are densely crowded. Türr takes his place on the platform between the Minister of the Interior and the Mayor. He opens the Congress with a brief, vigorous address. Here is a passage from it:

Not so very long ago there were princes and noblemen who fought one
another and exercised jurisdiction over their subjects and serfs. If
any one at that day had told them that the time would come when they
would be required to bring their quarrels before a judge, they would
have declared that person a dreamer, a Utopian, or something worse.
And now these great lords are compelled to appear before the judge,
where all their former serfs stand on the same footing with them.

This change might be brought about also in the relations of the
powers, and all the easier since it does not here concern two or three
hundred princes and thousands of members of the high and lower
nobility. We have to-day six great powers; and even these have
united,—some in the Triple Alliance, the others in a friendly union;
and all for the purpose of preserving peace.

Now then, only one further step is required. If these two groups
unite, then the smaller states will join, and the free confederation
of the European powers is accomplished.

After the session the participants in the Congress are conducted to the Millennial Exposition,—the “Historical Exposition,” ... a thousand years of Hungarian history, from the primitive simplicity of the semibarbarous time of Arpád down to the refined industry of the highly developed—let us say only quarter-barbarous—to-day. And if another thousand years pass by and again an exposition illustrates the course of development, will the little medals with the word _pax_ on them, such as we all have attached to our clothes as tokens, at that time be found perchance among the articles of apparel?

In the evening a garden party in Oes-Budavar. Everywhere at the appearance of the troops of peace ring forth from the densely encircling public hearty shouts of _Éljen!_

September 18. An interesting session. Élie Ducommun reads the report about the events of the past year. In the first place the progress of arbitration and the other successes and labors of the League; then a survey of the military events in Egypt, Abyssinia, Cuba, and Madagascar; finally, the latest events in Turkey. “Whoever may have been the originators of the atrocities, every civilized man must condemn them, just as he must condemn those who permitted the atrocities.”[10]

James Capper, the sympathetic Englishman with the white, apostolic head, with the hearty, ringing voice, gets the floor. “The report of the Central Bureau,” he says, “shows so clearly the absurdity of the so-called armed peace.... What! The many armies, the terrible engines of destruction, are for the purpose of furnishing and maintaining peace, are they? and yet six million soldiers have not sufficed to prevent the infamies that have been taking place in the Orient! We should not look idly on while brigands trample down a whole nation! If I see in the street a child attacked by villains, I consider it my duty to interfere with both fists in defense of the one attacked, and if in the struggle I should have to lose my life, I would do it willingly!” Loud applause. We all feel it would be a legitimate use of force to protect the persecuted against force.

A young French priest, Abbé Pichot, moves that the Congress send an address to the Pope, begging him to grant the movement his support: it is known to him that Leo XIII had the peace cause much at heart, and that a word of approval from that quarter would be of the highest value. I spring to my feet and second the motion. I also know for a fact that the Pope has frequently of late years spoken against preparations for war and in favor of the international arbitration tribunal; but it is not sufficiently well known, because these utterances were made to a Russian publicist and an editor of the _Daily Chronicle_. The Catholic press and the Church generally, as well as the whole Catholic world, have failed to hear those words. How very different would be the effect if the Pope should direct these observations of his directly to the millions of his faithful. So then, I urged, let the respectful request be submitted to him that he embody in an encyclical the expressions of encouragement already often pronounced by him in the presence of the advocates of peace. Some one objects: the motion could not fail to offend those of other beliefs, especially freethinkers; no religious tendency should be introduced. Frédéric Passy explains that we are dealing not with religious but with humanitarian demonstrations. The motion is carried.

In the evening, gala performance of the opera _Der Geiger von Cremona_.[11]

I receive a letter from Dr. Julius Ofner, deputy to the Austrian Parliament. I give the text of it here:

... I should gladly have taken part in the deliberations on the
international arbitration tribunal. The talk that is made on this
point seems to me too timid, too much directed to the welfare of the
states and too little to their duties; _apostles do not flatter_.

From a legal point of view there can be no doubt: no law without a
judge; no one can decide in his own cause, and history teaches that if
states desire even the most unrighteous things, they have always found
crown jurists to defend them and declare them lawful. As long,
therefore, as there is no tribunal erected for international
differences, there will be international politeness, international
morals, but no international justice. The strong is infallible;
injured justice turns only against the weak. The appeal to
sovereignty, which, it is said, must not be curtailed, is nothing but
a cloak for the desire to be permitted to do arbitrary wrong. For all
law limits the single individual for the advantage of the rest, limits
arbitrariness for the advantage of universal liberty. Law and
righteousness are at the foundation of all culture, and what Kant said
in regard to mankind in general applies to states,—“If there were no
law it would not be worth while for men to live on earth.”

There is nothing sensational in the session. The afternoon is spent at the Othon, a journalists’ club. In Türr’s company my niece and I make a call on Prime Minister Banffy.

September 20. Outing for the members of the Congress. We are taken on special steamboats to the Margareteninsel, where the committee provide a luncheon. The weather is splendid—the tables are set in the open air, surrounded by the wonderful grounds of the park. “Do you know, my dear colleagues and friends,” said General Türr, “this island was formerly a wilderness. The owner, Archduke Joseph, by clearing, cultivating, and decorating it, has made a paradise of it. So may that wilderness which to-day prevails in international life be turned by the civilizing power of the work of peace into a blooming land like the Margareteninsel.”

Of course others also speak. Deep emotion is caused, however, when an Italian delegate, a former captain on the general staff, Conte di Pampero, lifting up his eight-year-old son and standing him on the table, asks permission to speak in the name of the youngest member of the Congress, and, laying his hand as if in blessing on the lad’s head, adjures those present to bring up their children, just as he is doing, to hate war and love humanity....

September 21. Very lively debate over dueling. A delegate—Félix Lacaze from France—makes the motion that all Peace Societies shall require their members to agree to decline all duels. A great controversy arises. Count Eugen Zichy declares that if this is carried he must as a matter of honor resign from the Union. Such an obligation cannot be undertaken in certain countries and in certain circles. The English members, who are indignant that the duel is being discussed, are provoked and refuse to allow Count Zichy to have the floor a second time, although he declares he wishes to speak in the line of conciliation. Finally Houzeau de Lehaye, the ever conciliatory, offers a compromise resolution which, although declaring that nothing can be mandatory upon the members, nevertheless urges them to make every effort to discourage the use of the duel, as contradictory to the principles which they are supporting, and to secure the execution of the laws that relate to it.

I have made an interesting new acquaintance,—a Russian by the name of Nepluief. He introduced himself to me during a recess in the proceedings, and is urging me to support his ideas. He has founded in his country an institution based on the principles of education for peace. He gives the impression of being a _grand seigneur_, and at the same time a deeply religious man. His idea in coming here is to acquaint the Congress with the institution which he has called into life, and have it imitated everywhere. He called himself on his visiting card “Président de la Confrérie ouvrière de l’Exaltation de la Croix.” In this way he imparts an ecclesiastical tinge to his socialistic undertaking. A multimillionaire, possesser of wide landed estates and numerous factories in the Government of Chernigof, he began his career as a diplomat, but gave it up in order to devote himself wholly to the task of elevating the Russian peasants morally and materially. At his own expense he founded popular schools for industrial and agricultural training, and peasant unions which he calls “Brotherhoods.” From the first he gave these unions a share in the profits of his undertaking; later he turned over his whole property to their complete control, reserving for himself only the title of life president of these enterprises. But things did not run smoothly. For years he had to contend with the ill will of the Russian bureaucracy, which suspected him of being a socialist. Finally, however, his work of education brought him satisfactory results. He has explained his methods and experiences in a pamphlet, which he distributed to the members of the Congress. He himself departed from Budapest the same day.[12]

In the evening a banquet is given by the city.

September 22. A deputation from the Society for the Protection of Animals call upon me and beg me to support their endeavors. I reply that I have at that moment a book under way, entitled _Schach der Qual_ (“Check to Suffering”), in which there is to be a chapter pleading for our poor dumb fellow-creatures, that are so cruelly treated.

Final session. At half past one General Türr ends the Congress with the greeting _Auf Wiedersehn_. The “meeting again” takes place two hours later, in the Hotel Royal, where a farewell dinner is given to the president and the committee and the rest of us. Malaria—Olga Wisinger—had taken charge of the arrangements. But even now there is no general breaking up, for many of the participants remain here in order to be present at the opening to-morrow of the Interparliamentary Conference.

We were also among those who were going to remain a few days longer. As early as the sixteenth of August the following letter had reached us at Harmannsdorf:

Interparliamentary Conference, Hungarian Group
Budapest, August 15

Your Highness:

The useful zeal and the self-sacrificing and profitable labors which
you have undertaken in the interest and service of universal peace
make it a pleasant duty for us to invite you, as well as your husband,
and your niece the Baroness von Suttner, to the Interparliamentary
Conference which is to open at Budapest on the twenty-second of
September.

As you are aware, only members of legislatures can take part in the
Conference; yet it may interest you to follow the sessions from the
gallery and to participate in the festivities and excursions.

In this hope, etc.
Koloman v. Szell, Chairman
Aristide v. Deszewffy, Secretary
of the Executive Committee

I return to my Budapest diary.

September 23. Yesterday, as on the eve of the Congress, a great soirée in the Parkklub, cards of invitation for which were sent out by Koloman von Szell. This clubhouse is really beautiful—massive, splendid, with English comfort. All the members of the Conference are present; we have a joyous meeting with old acquaintances,—Stanhope, Beernaert, Cremer, Descamps, and others. Many ladies of Hungarian society and the wives of the members of the Conference are there. Almost all the Hungarian ministers, Baron Banffy at their head; Counts Eugen Zichy, Albert Apponyi, Szapary, Esterhazy, and many journalists and artists. Our old Passy is closely surrounded. Maria Louise looks wondrously pretty and, it seems to me, is turning the heads of several of the Magyars! Also that northern maiden, Ranghild Lund, the beauty of the conference days at Rome, is here and arousing much admiration. John Lund comes up to me and brings me a message from Björnson. I make the acquaintance of a young Countess Kalnoky (unmarried and very independent), and her free and broad-minded views greatly appeal to me. Then we are joined by a Countess Forgac; she has much to tell us of Empress Elisabeth, among other things the following: Some spirit communications had been made (presumably at a spiritualistic séance) to the effect that the place where the Crown Prince Rudolf is staying is worse than hell and no prayers are of any avail; the Empress is full of despair about it. Melinda Karolyi and I exchange glances equivalent to many exclamation marks.

Servants bring round delicious edibles and drinkables. A journalist remarks, “One need not be a member of a peace league to find this sort of international meeting decidedly pleasanter than those where bombs and grenades are served.”

To-day the opening session takes place in the House of Magnates. Before the building, on the edge of the street, fastened together with garlands of flowers, stand masts, from which float the flags of all the nations that participate in the Conference,—an object lesson for the passers-by. That conception of a “European Confederation,” still so strange, is here expressed in the language of emblems.

We reach our places in the gallery before the members of the Conference make their appearance in the hall, so we watch them as they come in deliberately and take their places. In the ministerial chairs, where of late the King’s Hungarian councilors sat, now the foreign parliamentarians are taking their seats. Frédéric Passy is between Cardinal Schlauch and Minister Darany. Gobat mounts the platform and proposes that the president of the Hungarian House of Deputies, Desider Szilagyi, be chairman of the Conference. He accepts and delivers the welcoming address. Now follow the speeches of old acquaintances,—Pirquet, Descamps, Beernaert, Von Bar, Bajer, and others. Apponyi is new and surprising to me. What a speaker! He has a tall, elegant figure, a powerful barytone voice, and an easy mastery of foreign tongues.

At the second session at four o’clock begin the actual transactions. Point I: “Permanent International Arbitration Tribunal.” Descamps reports that he has sent to all the sovereigns and governments the memorandum in regard to this question, drawn up in accordance with the motion of the previous year. Most of the governments had replied favorably to the principles, but the most decisive answer came from St. Petersburg, from the recently departed Prince Lobanof.

In the evening a great soirée at the Prime Minister’s.

I see that my diary has not kept a very strict account of the various phases of the transactions of the Conference. But the official protocol lies before me and I will here dwell upon something that seems to me important in the historical development of the peace cause. In that session of September 22, 1896, the following resolution was offered by Pierantoni:

The Seventh Interparliamentary Conference requests all civilized
states to call a diplomatic conference in order that the question of
an international court of arbitration may be laid before it; at this
conference the labors of the Interparliamentary Union shall serve as a
basis for further resolves.

A Conference of Diplomatists. In this term does there not already ring—how shall I express it?—a note suggestive of the conferences at The Hague, in which, indeed, the labors of Descamps and La Fontaine served as the foundation of the establishment of the Hague Tribunal.

And still another debate of historical interest. During the session of the twenty-fourth of September the order of the day contains the question whether those nations that have no parliament may be able to participate in the Interparliamentary Conferences, and what their status shall be. Count Albert Apponyi, who has composed a memorial on this subject, which is distributed through the hall, makes the report. He refers to the memorial, and confines himself to a brief exposition. He reserves the privilege of again expressing his views at the conclusion of the debate; now he will only state the motion:

That an amendment be added to the statutes to the effect that the
Conferences shall admit to their deliberations also the delegates of
sovereigns, rulers, and governments, as well as of the Russian
Imperial Council or any similar institution in nonconstitutional
countries, in so far as such delegates are accredited by their
governments. The Management (_Bureau_) shall be authorized to inform
the rulers and governments of nonconstitutional countries that the
Conference would be pleased to welcome their delegates to its
deliberations.

Lewakowski, member of the Austrian Parliament, opposes Apponyi’s motion; its aim is wholly and solely the admission of Russia.

“We are here,” he declares, “as the representatives of the people, and we are working here in the spirit of our commissions. The Russian nation cannot send any representative that can have the same authority as we have.” Norton, Snape, Pirquet, Rahusen, and Passy speak in favor of the motion.

M. G. Conrad[13] opposes the motion in the most violent terms: “Either we are a parliamentary conference or we are not. We do not need to know what the governments say; we want to hear the views of the people themselves. And the views of the Russian people you surely will not be likely to hear from the mouths of the delegates of the Russian government.”

Stanhope favors the adoption of the motion. The magnificent object of the Conference, he declares, would only be furthered by it. There actually exists in Russia something that corresponds to a parliamentary body, and, who knows? some day, directly through the influence of our Conference, something may develop that will lead to constitutionalism.

Then Count Apponyi brings the debate to a conclusion. He takes strong issue with his opponents. In reply to Lewakowski he declares that numerous gentlemen are sitting here who have not received their credentials from their nation and indeed are members of the upper houses appointed by their sovereigns. In the one scale are placed the objections that have been adduced, in the other the immense importance of the fact that such a great empire as Russia, occupying a third of all Europe, ought to share in our deliberations. This question came up for the first time in the Hungarian Group, and was agitated in the interest of those countries that have, to be sure, no parliaments, and yet desire to participate in our labors and to battle for the peace of the world. These also have the right to collaborate with us in the great work of civilization. We are all pursuing the one aim of helping a righteous cause to victory, and any kind of assistance can be welcomed by us. The honored president of the former Conference has sent to all the governments his memorandum regarding the Court of Arbitration, and the most sympathetic reply was that received from the late Prince Lobanof.

Descamps: “That is correct.”

Apponyi: “In Russia, as may be seen by many indications, the tendency to take part in European affairs is strong; for some time Russia has been represented at most Congresses. We must give her the opportunity to share also in our labors; it is indeed not beyond the bounds of possibility that the development of affairs in Russia will be in this way favorably influenced. At all events the sympathy of such a powerful state could only strengthen our endeavors.”

It is interesting to connect with this debate of September 24, 1896, the fact that on the 24th of August, 1898, the manifesto calling the Peace Conference at The Hague emanated from Russia.

One other circumstance must also be mentioned here. The then Russian consul, Vasily, was present at the sessions and exercises of the Conference at Budapest, and communicated to his government accurate and sympathetic reports. He was an unhesitating friend of peace. His report was, as I afterwards learned, cast in the form of an impassioned plea for cessation of war preparations. The suggestion did not receive the approval of his superiors, and remained for some time forgotten. A year later, however, when Lord Salisbury in his Guildhall address animadverted on the endless increase in armament among the nations, and declared that the only hope of escaping general ruin lay in the union of the powers in some kind of an international constitution, then M. Vasily presented anew his idea in behalf of an attempt to bring about an international understanding on this point. Vasily was attached to the ministry of foreign affairs; he naturally communicated his ideas to his chief, Count Lamsdorff, who, in turn, laid them before the Emperor.

When, in 1906, the Interparliamentary Conference met in London, a parliament was sitting in St. Petersburg which sent its representatives to England, not in the name of a group, but of the whole Duma. To be sure, on the very day when, at the opening session in Westminster Hall, the Russian delegate was to deliver his salutatory, the news arrived that the Duma was prorogued. The Russians were obliged, therefore, to quit London with their business unaccomplished, and Campbell-Bannerman, who opened the Interparliamentary Conference, was given the opportunity of perpetrating his _mot_, which afterwards became so famous: _La douma est morte, vive la douma!_

After this brief excursion into the future I return to the Budapest notes in my diary.

September 24. After the morning session, when the Russian debate was on, in which Apponyi distinguished himself and which Vasily and Novikof followed with great interest, we make a call on Maurus Jókai. An attack of indisposition prevented him from taking part in the Conference, but he is well enough to receive us. He lives in a villa of his own, not large but very beautiful, and surrounded by a garden. He shows us all his treasures,—his worktable, his books, and the gifts which he received at his Jubilee; among them the splendid offering from the Hungarian nation, the de luxe edition of his complete works, for the publication of which subscriptions of a hundred thousand gulden were paid in advance,—a gift of honor presented to the poet by his fellow-countrymen. Two very interesting hours. Jókai tells us much about his life. He gives me his photograph inscribed with his name.

In the evening a gala performance of the opera _Bank-Ban_, by Erkel[14]; Bianca Bianchi trills like a nightingale.

September 25. Final session. Closing banquet in the festival hall of the Exposition. Eight hundred participants. On both sides of the vestibule stand Haiduks in gala uniform. At the table of honor, with the leaders of the various foreign groups, are Beernaert, Passy, Stanhope, Descamps, and others; and the Hungarians, Szilagyi, Szell, Apponyi, Szapary, Berzeviczy, Franz Kossuth, and Mayor Ráth as host. My neighbors are the English General Havelock and Count Koloman Esterhazy. After the toast to the King, offered by the mayor, Koloman Szell toasts the members of the Conference, “the masters and banner bearers in the greatest question in the progress of civilization.”

The exercises were not at an end even on the last day of the Conference. The participants were invited to help celebrate the opening of the “Iron Gate,” which was to take place in the presence of the Emperor. On the twenty-sixth of September, in the evening, two special trains took us to Orsova, where comfortable quarters were assigned to each and every guest. On the morning of the twenty-seventh, radiant with unclouded sunshine, we all went aboard the special steamboat _Zriny_, which, occupying the fourth place in the column, accompanied the imperial ship down the Danube; the second boat carried the generals, the third the diplomats. After the flotilla reached the Kazan pass, the imperial ship cut through a cable of flowers stretched across the Danube canal—the “Iron Gate” was opened.

“This festal occasion,” said Emperor Franz Joseph, “which brings us together to celebrate a great work of public utility, fills me with happiness, and in the conviction that this work will give a powerful and healthy impulse to the peaceful and advantageous development of international relations, I drink to the happiness and prosperity of the nations.”

The four steamboats now moved slowly past and sailed back to Orsova.

L
OTHER EVENTS OF THE YEAR 1896

Jingo criticism of Budapest · A prophetic chapter from _Schach der Qual_ · A poem by Hoyos and a letter from Nathaniel Rothschild · Visits of the Tsar · Extracts from diary · Correspondence between the Austrian Peace Society and the English Department of Foreign Affairs · Treaty of peace between Menelik and Italy

Again at Harmannsdorf. The days at Budapest had left a joyous feeling of exultation. The meeting had given conspicuous testimony to the growth of the movement and to the impression that it was making in powerful political circles. Perfectly amusing and indeed comical in its malicious perversion of facts, its absolutely bottomless ignorance, was an article in the jingo press that I found in a mountain of press notices which had collected at home during our absence. The _St. James Gazette_ of September 18 wrote:

There are more important transactions in progress at this moment in
Europe than the Seventh Peace Congress, which has just met in the
Grand Hall of the Municipal Palace in Budapest. None are more odd, or,
in a way, better worth looking at. The good men who have met on the
initiative of a most excellent lady, the Baroness Bertha von Suttner,
author of “Down with Arms,” and creator of the Peace Congress,
represent the fine flower of all that vaguely well-meaning, emotional,
and unpractical class of persons which is to be found in most
countries, and nowhere in finer feather than among ourselves. To see
that there is something wrong in the world, and to propose a remedy
which, on inquiry, turns out to be a radical change in human nature,
is the same thing with them. They are active in many fields, or, to
speak with more accuracy, they talk at large on many subjects; but
they are nowhere seen in more complete beauty than when in congress
assembled for the purpose of speaking of peace.... Carlyle wanted to
know the meaning of the moralist who, in the conflict between Gods and
Giants, put out his hand armed “with a pair of tweezers.” At this
moment, when it is really not too much to say that all Europe is “a
town of war, the people’s hearts yet wild, brimful of fear,” the good
Baroness Bertha and like-minded persons come forward at Budapest with
their pair of tweezers.... The value of the Baroness von Suttner’s
picnic becomes fully conspicuous when we turn, etc., etc.

I sent Alfred Nobel a careful account of the events at Budapest, and corresponded also with Egidy about them. I worked steadily on my book, _Schach der Qual_, an imaginative story. A chapter in it is called _Frohbotschaft_ (“Good Tidings”). It describes an “international conference for securing peace.” In his opening address the chairman speaks these words:

This meeting is called together at the initiative of one of the most
powerful sovereigns of Europe, and after the assent to its principal
object has been obtained from all the other governments; and almost
all countries, great and small, with very few exceptions, have
declared their agreement and are here represented.

The book was begun in 1895 and was published by Pierson at the beginning of 1897, so that the words here cited cannot be a reminiscence of the Hague Peace Conference, which was first summoned in 1898 by “one of the most powerful sovereigns of Europe”; but they are a prophetic announcement of it. This was a coincidence rare enough to make it worthy of remark.

Other incidents that interested me during the year 1896 I find jotted down in my diary:

October 2. No letter from Hoyos in a long time. He must be ill. I hope he will soon be well again, the splendid man! There are not many in our aristocracy who are so free and grand and magnanimous in their thoughts, and who are so entirely opposite to reactionary—almost socialistic. Note this example of it: Lately a collection was taken for the unemployed. Hoyos added the following verses to his contribution:

_Sammlung für die Arbeitslosen_

For the unemployed, collections,—
Coal, old clothes, and doles of bread,
Linen, hose,—they’re no corrections
For the want so widely spread!

Do not mitigate starvation;
See that hunger you expel;
Then you’ll make the demonstration
That you love your neighbor well.

Give not alms to your poor neighbor;
Stop the source of poverty;[15]
Do not limit, hamper Labor;
Make its course forever free!

In the Code’s indwelling spirit
Let not Law o’er Duty stand;
Let them the same place inherit;
Let all men the Law command!

October 10. The Emperor of Russia has been in Vienna. From there he went to Breslau, Balmoral, Paris. The result of it is _Pax et Robur_. So at least some remark; others say the result is _Revanche_; still a third think that everything remains as it was before. But this last is not correct. It has brought about something new, to wit,—that in divided and split-up and hostile Europe the sovereign of one country travels to another and goes everywhere as a friend and is everywhere received as a friend. Indeed, if Europe were a civilized complex of states, that would be as natural and as much a matter of course as it is for a landed proprietor to make a series of visits among all the neighboring families. Not in half a century, perhaps, has the word “peace” been so frequently, so emphatically, so solemnly, so universally repeated in speeches and newspapers as it has been in consequence of this journey. That shows the tendency of the _Zeitgeist_; but it is still far from the peace that we mean. For the whole affair abounds in contradictions, especially the contradiction that exists between the new tendency and the old institutions, views, and political constellations still intrenched in power. Here is a monster of contradiction, such as the history of the world has never before displayed: two mutually opposed shields loaded with explosives; two hostile guardians of the peace, or two peaceable guardians of enmity,—_Dreibund_ and _Zweibund_. Why not equally well _Fünfbund_?

October 15. Already 165,000 men in all have been sent to Cuba. The Spanish Ministry of War intend to dispatch 40,000 more, because yellow fever and other diseases have already greatly reduced the number of the effective. A loan of a milliard is planned.