FOOTNOTES:

Considering that,—1. The geographical position of the three northern States, is such, that they might, with a larger military and commercial naval power than they now possess, hold the keys of the Baltic:2. Whilst the very weakness of these States probably removes all danger of their using the advantages of this position against Europe, the same weakness may one day expose them, either by force or fraud, to be plundered by their powerful neighbours:3. The inviolability of the three northern States, and their independence of every foreign influence, is in the true interest of all Europe, and their neutralization would tend to the general order.4. Their independence, which is indeed a common right of all nations, can only be secured to the northern nations by their neutralization.5. This neutralization ought to have for its object and legal effect:Firstly, To place beyond all danger of war all those portions of land and sea which belong to Sweden, Denmark and Norway.Secondly, To secure at all times, even during war, to all merchant and war-ships, whatever flag they carry, whether that of a belligerent or not, full liberty to run into the Baltic from the North Sea, orvice versâ, whether sailing singly or in fleets.On these accounts the meeting declares,—That Denmark, Sweden and Norway ought to be neutralized, and that this neutralization ought to include:—1. With respect to the mainland and islands of Norway, Sweden andDenmark, that all parts of this territory shall be at all times entirely neutral.2. With respect to the Sound and the Little Belt, that in time of war, ships belonging to any belligerent power shall be forbidden to show themselves in these seas; which, on the other hand, shall be always open for merchant craft, even those belonging to belligerent powers, as well as for war-ships belonging to neutrals.3. With respect to the Great Belt, that this strait shall always be open for merchant and war-ships of every flag, including belligerents, whether singly or in fleets; but that these ships shall be entirely forbidden to undertake any inimical action on the coasts of the above-named strait, or in its seas, within a distance exceeding the maximum range of its artillery before sailing in or sailing out, or indeed any attack, seizure, privateering, blockade, embargo, etc., or any other warlike action whatever.The meeting expressed its desire to see an international congress arrange and conclude a treaty which should be open for all European nations to enter into and sign, which should establish on the above-named basis, under the guarantee of the signatory powers, the neutrality of the northern States, together with the creation of a really solid tribunal of arbitration, which, as the highest court of appeal, should solve all difficulties that might arise with respect to the said treaty.

Considering that,—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On these accounts the meeting declares,—

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:[14]This and the following regulations are taken from Bluntschli's "Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilizirten Staatens," Nordlingen, 1872. Some of the treaty provisions and questions are grounded upon "Recueil des traités, conventions," etc., par Ch. de Martens and F de Cussy, Leipzig, 1846, and "Archives diplomatiques:"—Since practical abstaining from war is the natural assumption of neutrality, a neutral State is bound not to assist any belligerent power in warlike purposes.—A neutral State may not supply a belligerent power with weapons or other war material.—If private persons furnish belligerent powers with war material as articles of commerce, they assuredly run the risk of confiscation by the contending parties of such articles, as contraband of war; but the neutralStateis not to be regarded as having violated its neutrality by tolerating trade in contraband of war.—Permission freely to purchase food even upon account of a belligerent power is not regarded as a serious concession towards that State, provided that the permission is general, applying alike to both parties.—A neutral State may not permit the war-ships of a belligerent power to run into its ports or (with any other object than to procure provisions, water, coal, etc.) to traverse its sounds, rivers and canals.—Belligerent powers are bound fully to respect the right of peace of the neutral States, and to abstain from any invasion of their territories.—Where a violation of neutral territory has taken place from ignorance of the boundary and not from evil intent, the neutral State shall immediately claim redress, compensation, and the adoption of measures necessary to prevent a similar mistake in future.[15]See in respect of this act, "Recueil des traités, conventions," etc., Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, Part iii. p. 243 Leipzig, 1846.[16]See Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, in the above-named collection, Part iv. p. 575.[17]Respecting the correspondence on this question, see the remainder of "Archives diplomatiques," 1871-72.[18]Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97.Since the European States have settled into their present grouping, the material preponderance of the great powers over the smaller countries has more and more diminished the possibility of these defending their external liberty and independence by military power only.There are States whose whole male population cannot equal or barely exceed the number, which a great power can command for its fully equipped army.In olden time, a small high-spirited people might with success fight against a greater and more powerful neighbour. In consequence of the weak organization, the feeble spirit of cohesion and the slightly developed art of war, it was then possible.Now this condition is changed. As a rule we find that the military strength of a State is in direct proportion to its population and material wealth.The consequence is that the smaller States have virtually ceased to be belligerent powers. Such examples as Germany's proceeding against Denmark in 1864, and England's against Egypt in 1882, or in general, when the stronger State only needs to consider how large a portion of its forces must be employed to accomplish its object, are not to be considered as wars, but as military executions.As to our own country (Sweden), it certainly has, together with Norway, an advantage in its situation above other small powers. But it concerns us that we utilize this advantage with wisdom and at the right time. This is not to be done by turning Sweden into a military State, because even if we did so to the greatest possible extent, we should, if left to ourselves, not even so be in a condition to defend ourselves against our powerful neighbours.In proportion as a nation exhausts its resources by military preparations, its ability lessens to cope with an over-powering enemy.In our day, not only are great and well-disciplined hosts required for carrying on war, but great material riches are equally indispensable. The relation between a nation of four or five millions, and one of forty or fifty millions, is like that between the dwarfs and the giants.It is easily understood that patriotic feelings may bewilder the judgment, and that our nation, with its brilliant war memories, can only with difficulty perceive this simple truth, and with reluctance accommodate itself to the changed condition which modern times have created.Let us, however, realize that we are standing at the parting of the ways; that we have before us the alternative, on the one hand, of a barren and ruinous militarism; on the other, the seeking of our defence in a neutrality guaranteed by the united powers; making it possible for us to get our defence adjusted, without any very great difficulty, and settled upon a footing so satisfactory.The first-named alternative would, in our naturally poor land, excessively depress our natural vitality, and in a great degree prevent our progress as a cultured people keeping pace with greater and wealthier nations. The second would put us into a position to confine our military burdens within reasonable limits, and to expend the powers and resources of prosperity thus relieved, in means of promoting business, trade, science, and well-being of all kinds.The clear-sighted friend of his country, who sees the population in ever-swelling numbers leaving their homes for a foreign shore, seeking a new fatherland, will surely not hesitate in his choice.It will perhaps be said that such a choice does not now lie before us. There are two opinions about that. But in one thing we may all unite, namely, that a settled neutrality for Sweden is a thing to be aimed at. Here almost every interest of the fatherland converges.But if such a neutralization is considered by many not a sufficient peace-protection under all circumstances, yet no one with reason can deny that it does form a security for our country against foreign powers.Accepting this conclusion as correct, it follows that we should find some practicable means of realizing it; and if hindrances do meet us, we shall, on nearer inspection, find that they are not great, but with hearty goodwill and perseverance may be overcome.This is my conviction.In drawing attention to the subjoined, I would further bring to mind that the seat of war in Europe is limited in the proportion in which the number of neutralized States grows, a condition of things which may little by little in an essential degree impede or prevent the outbreak of war; that the peculiar situation of Sweden (greatly superior, for example, to Belgium or Switzerland) must naturally facilitate its neutralization; that, lastly, the neutrality proposed does not stand in the way of arranging our own defence, but that rather, in case Parliament rejects his Majesty's army bill, adapts itself powerfully to contribute to a right solution of theDefence question; and so much the more, as all suspicion that that old vexed question aims perhaps at something more and other thandefenceof the country would thereby disappear.For this reason—and since we cannot expect that other powers should take the first step and offer us what we do not ask for—I respectfully propose:—That Parliament shall in writing express to the king its desire that it might please his Majesty to initiate, amongst the states with which Sweden has diplomatic relations, negotiations for bringing about a permanent guaranteed[26]neutrality of Sweden, in harmony with the principles of modern international law.K.P. Arnoldson.Stockholm,February, 1883.This motion was supported by—S.A. Hedlund,Will. Farup,J. Andersson, Tenhuset,J.E. Ericsson, Alberta,Per Persson,F.F. Borg,J. Jonassen, Gullahs,C.J. Sven's,A. Th. Waylen's,P.M. Larson, LA,P.G. Peterson,Arvid Gumœlius,J. Jonassen,Eric Olsson,J.A. Ericsson,Lars Nilsson,C.G. Otterborg.[19]Taken from the following communication:At a meeting, March 31st, 1883, of the Association of members of the Storting, a document was presented, being a motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97, respecting the Neutralization of Sweden; which document was sent to the president of the meeting by a Swedish M.P.In consequence of this the following declaration and resolution was voted unanimously: Recognising that the neutralization of a single country is in the interest of universal peace; that being secured from foreign attack by stronger nations, gives ability to use its own resources and develop its institutions, including its defence, according to its special requirements; that the condition and situation of our country give equal opportunity for working for this object, and facilities for its attainment; and that the action taken in the Swedish Rigsdag upon the question, seriously calls our attention to it on the ground of the constitutional relation between the kingdoms and their union in war and in peace; a committee is requested to take into consideration, how the question may be subjected to further attention.A. QUAM, Secretary of the Association.[20]Protocol of the Second Chamber, No 33, April 28th, 1883.[21]See on the dealing with the question in Parliament, "Riksdagstrycket" 1883. Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97, pp. 1-8; First Chamber, protocol No. 33, pp. 3-4, etc., etc.[22]Mr. Arnoldson's speech ran thus:—"The second speaker on the Right propounded certain difficulties, amongst others, one referring to Sweden's union with Norway. Since Sweden and Norway have the same foreign policy, and the initiative in this question comes from Sweden, the Union King ought certainly to be able to act freely in the common interest of the two kingdoms. In any case, it is probable, as Mr. Hedlund remarked, that if the Riksdag takes the first step it will not be long before the Storting comes to meet us. It was chiefly on the ground of courtesy that I did not undertake to speak for Norway too in the Riksdag. We know that the Norse—and it does them honour—are tenacious of their right of deciding for themselves. I do not think it would be seemly for the mover of such a resolution as this to make himself their spokesman in the Swedish Riksdag—not to mention the positive incorrectness of the proceeding. This is why I limited the matter to Sweden in my proposition."[23]"Revue de droit international et de Legislation comparée," 1888, 2.[24]The most important provisions of the treaty are the following:—Article 1. The Suez Canal shall always be free and open whether in time of war or peace, for both merchant and war-ships, whatever flag they carry. The treaty-powers therefore decide that the use of this canal shall not be limited either in time of peace or war. The canal can never be blockaded.Article 4. No fortifications which can be used for military operations against the Suez Canal, may be erected at any point which would command or menace it. No points which command or menace its entrance or course may be occupied in a military sense.Article 5 provides that, although the Suez Canal shall be open in war-time, no belligerent action shall take place in its vicinity or in its harbours, or within a distance from its area which shall be determined by the international committee that watches over the canal.Article 6 is a continuation of the foregoing and runs thus: In time of war none of the belligerent powers are permitted to land, or to take on board, ammunition or other war material, either in the canal or in its harbours.Article 8. The powers are not allowed to keep any warship in the waters of the canal. But they may lay up war-ships in the harbours of Port Said and Suez to a number not exceeding two of any nation.Article 9. The representatives in Egypt of the powers who signed the treaty shall be charged with seeing to its fulfilment. In all cases where free passage through the canal may be menaced, they shall meet upon the summons of the senior member to investigate the facts. They shall acquaint the Khedive's Government with the danger anticipated, that it may take the measures needful to secure the safety and unimpeded use of the canal. They shall meet regularly once a year to ascertain that the treaty is properly observed. They shall most especially require the deposition of all works and dispersion of all collections of troops which on any part of the area of the canal might either design or cause a menace to the free passage or to the security thereof.Article 10 treats of the obligations of the Egyptian Government and runs thus:—The Egyptian Government shall, so far as its power by firman goes, take the measures necessary for enforcing the treaty. In case the Egyptian Government has not adequate means it shall apply to the Sublime Porte, which will then consult with the other signatories of the London treaty of March 17, and with them make provision in response to that application.Article 14 sets forth: Beyond the duties expressed and stipulated for in the paragraphs of this treaty, the sovereign rights of his Imperial Majesty the Sultan are in no way curtailed, nor are the privileges and rights of his Highness the Khedive as defined by the firman.[25]Nationaloekonomisk Tidsskrift, xxii. pp. 139-155. See alsoPolitiken, 1890, March 31. Article "Oeresunds Fred," signed, Defensor Patriæ.[26]The word "guaranteed" was inserted in the motion contrary to the opinion of the committee

[14]This and the following regulations are taken from Bluntschli's "Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilizirten Staatens," Nordlingen, 1872. Some of the treaty provisions and questions are grounded upon "Recueil des traités, conventions," etc., par Ch. de Martens and F de Cussy, Leipzig, 1846, and "Archives diplomatiques:"—Since practical abstaining from war is the natural assumption of neutrality, a neutral State is bound not to assist any belligerent power in warlike purposes.—A neutral State may not supply a belligerent power with weapons or other war material.—If private persons furnish belligerent powers with war material as articles of commerce, they assuredly run the risk of confiscation by the contending parties of such articles, as contraband of war; but the neutralStateis not to be regarded as having violated its neutrality by tolerating trade in contraband of war.—Permission freely to purchase food even upon account of a belligerent power is not regarded as a serious concession towards that State, provided that the permission is general, applying alike to both parties.—A neutral State may not permit the war-ships of a belligerent power to run into its ports or (with any other object than to procure provisions, water, coal, etc.) to traverse its sounds, rivers and canals.—Belligerent powers are bound fully to respect the right of peace of the neutral States, and to abstain from any invasion of their territories.—Where a violation of neutral territory has taken place from ignorance of the boundary and not from evil intent, the neutral State shall immediately claim redress, compensation, and the adoption of measures necessary to prevent a similar mistake in future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18]Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97.Since the European States have settled into their present grouping, the material preponderance of the great powers over the smaller countries has more and more diminished the possibility of these defending their external liberty and independence by military power only.There are States whose whole male population cannot equal or barely exceed the number, which a great power can command for its fully equipped army.In olden time, a small high-spirited people might with success fight against a greater and more powerful neighbour. In consequence of the weak organization, the feeble spirit of cohesion and the slightly developed art of war, it was then possible.Now this condition is changed. As a rule we find that the military strength of a State is in direct proportion to its population and material wealth.The consequence is that the smaller States have virtually ceased to be belligerent powers. Such examples as Germany's proceeding against Denmark in 1864, and England's against Egypt in 1882, or in general, when the stronger State only needs to consider how large a portion of its forces must be employed to accomplish its object, are not to be considered as wars, but as military executions.As to our own country (Sweden), it certainly has, together with Norway, an advantage in its situation above other small powers. But it concerns us that we utilize this advantage with wisdom and at the right time. This is not to be done by turning Sweden into a military State, because even if we did so to the greatest possible extent, we should, if left to ourselves, not even so be in a condition to defend ourselves against our powerful neighbours.In proportion as a nation exhausts its resources by military preparations, its ability lessens to cope with an over-powering enemy.In our day, not only are great and well-disciplined hosts required for carrying on war, but great material riches are equally indispensable. The relation between a nation of four or five millions, and one of forty or fifty millions, is like that between the dwarfs and the giants.It is easily understood that patriotic feelings may bewilder the judgment, and that our nation, with its brilliant war memories, can only with difficulty perceive this simple truth, and with reluctance accommodate itself to the changed condition which modern times have created.Let us, however, realize that we are standing at the parting of the ways; that we have before us the alternative, on the one hand, of a barren and ruinous militarism; on the other, the seeking of our defence in a neutrality guaranteed by the united powers; making it possible for us to get our defence adjusted, without any very great difficulty, and settled upon a footing so satisfactory.The first-named alternative would, in our naturally poor land, excessively depress our natural vitality, and in a great degree prevent our progress as a cultured people keeping pace with greater and wealthier nations. The second would put us into a position to confine our military burdens within reasonable limits, and to expend the powers and resources of prosperity thus relieved, in means of promoting business, trade, science, and well-being of all kinds.The clear-sighted friend of his country, who sees the population in ever-swelling numbers leaving their homes for a foreign shore, seeking a new fatherland, will surely not hesitate in his choice.It will perhaps be said that such a choice does not now lie before us. There are two opinions about that. But in one thing we may all unite, namely, that a settled neutrality for Sweden is a thing to be aimed at. Here almost every interest of the fatherland converges.But if such a neutralization is considered by many not a sufficient peace-protection under all circumstances, yet no one with reason can deny that it does form a security for our country against foreign powers.Accepting this conclusion as correct, it follows that we should find some practicable means of realizing it; and if hindrances do meet us, we shall, on nearer inspection, find that they are not great, but with hearty goodwill and perseverance may be overcome.This is my conviction.In drawing attention to the subjoined, I would further bring to mind that the seat of war in Europe is limited in the proportion in which the number of neutralized States grows, a condition of things which may little by little in an essential degree impede or prevent the outbreak of war; that the peculiar situation of Sweden (greatly superior, for example, to Belgium or Switzerland) must naturally facilitate its neutralization; that, lastly, the neutrality proposed does not stand in the way of arranging our own defence, but that rather, in case Parliament rejects his Majesty's army bill, adapts itself powerfully to contribute to a right solution of theDefence question; and so much the more, as all suspicion that that old vexed question aims perhaps at something more and other thandefenceof the country would thereby disappear.For this reason—and since we cannot expect that other powers should take the first step and offer us what we do not ask for—I respectfully propose:—That Parliament shall in writing express to the king its desire that it might please his Majesty to initiate, amongst the states with which Sweden has diplomatic relations, negotiations for bringing about a permanent guaranteed[26]neutrality of Sweden, in harmony with the principles of modern international law.K.P. Arnoldson.Stockholm,February, 1883.This motion was supported by—S.A. Hedlund,Will. Farup,J. Andersson, Tenhuset,J.E. Ericsson, Alberta,Per Persson,F.F. Borg,J. Jonassen, Gullahs,C.J. Sven's,A. Th. Waylen's,P.M. Larson, LA,P.G. Peterson,Arvid Gumœlius,J. Jonassen,Eric Olsson,J.A. Ericsson,Lars Nilsson,C.G. Otterborg.

[18]Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is my conviction.

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

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

That Parliament shall in writing express to the king its desire that it might please his Majesty to initiate, amongst the states with which Sweden has diplomatic relations, negotiations for bringing about a permanent guaranteed[26]neutrality of Sweden, in harmony with the principles of modern international law.K.P. Arnoldson.Stockholm,February, 1883.

K.P. Arnoldson.

Stockholm,February, 1883.

This motion was supported by—

S.A. Hedlund,Will. Farup,J. Andersson, Tenhuset,J.E. Ericsson, Alberta,Per Persson,F.F. Borg,J. Jonassen, Gullahs,C.J. Sven's,A. Th. Waylen's,P.M. Larson, LA,P.G. Peterson,Arvid Gumœlius,J. Jonassen,Eric Olsson,J.A. Ericsson,Lars Nilsson,C.G. Otterborg.

[19]Taken from the following communication:At a meeting, March 31st, 1883, of the Association of members of the Storting, a document was presented, being a motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97, respecting the Neutralization of Sweden; which document was sent to the president of the meeting by a Swedish M.P.In consequence of this the following declaration and resolution was voted unanimously: Recognising that the neutralization of a single country is in the interest of universal peace; that being secured from foreign attack by stronger nations, gives ability to use its own resources and develop its institutions, including its defence, according to its special requirements; that the condition and situation of our country give equal opportunity for working for this object, and facilities for its attainment; and that the action taken in the Swedish Rigsdag upon the question, seriously calls our attention to it on the ground of the constitutional relation between the kingdoms and their union in war and in peace; a committee is requested to take into consideration, how the question may be subjected to further attention.A. QUAM, Secretary of the Association.

[19]Taken from the following communication:

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

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

A. QUAM, Secretary of the Association.

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

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

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

[22]Mr. Arnoldson's speech ran thus:—

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

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

[24]The most important provisions of the treaty are the following:—Article 1. The Suez Canal shall always be free and open whether in time of war or peace, for both merchant and war-ships, whatever flag they carry. The treaty-powers therefore decide that the use of this canal shall not be limited either in time of peace or war. The canal can never be blockaded.Article 4. No fortifications which can be used for military operations against the Suez Canal, may be erected at any point which would command or menace it. No points which command or menace its entrance or course may be occupied in a military sense.Article 5 provides that, although the Suez Canal shall be open in war-time, no belligerent action shall take place in its vicinity or in its harbours, or within a distance from its area which shall be determined by the international committee that watches over the canal.Article 6 is a continuation of the foregoing and runs thus: In time of war none of the belligerent powers are permitted to land, or to take on board, ammunition or other war material, either in the canal or in its harbours.Article 8. The powers are not allowed to keep any warship in the waters of the canal. But they may lay up war-ships in the harbours of Port Said and Suez to a number not exceeding two of any nation.Article 9. The representatives in Egypt of the powers who signed the treaty shall be charged with seeing to its fulfilment. In all cases where free passage through the canal may be menaced, they shall meet upon the summons of the senior member to investigate the facts. They shall acquaint the Khedive's Government with the danger anticipated, that it may take the measures needful to secure the safety and unimpeded use of the canal. They shall meet regularly once a year to ascertain that the treaty is properly observed. They shall most especially require the deposition of all works and dispersion of all collections of troops which on any part of the area of the canal might either design or cause a menace to the free passage or to the security thereof.Article 10 treats of the obligations of the Egyptian Government and runs thus:—The Egyptian Government shall, so far as its power by firman goes, take the measures necessary for enforcing the treaty. In case the Egyptian Government has not adequate means it shall apply to the Sublime Porte, which will then consult with the other signatories of the London treaty of March 17, and with them make provision in response to that application.Article 14 sets forth: Beyond the duties expressed and stipulated for in the paragraphs of this treaty, the sovereign rights of his Imperial Majesty the Sultan are in no way curtailed, nor are the privileges and rights of his Highness the Khedive as defined by the firman.

[24]The most important provisions of the treaty are the following:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are the sacrifices demanded from the people.

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

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

It is simply an assertion, refuted by experience, that the king cannotmake use of the law here treated of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From these facts, de Molinari deduces a principle of justice—Neutral States have the right to forbid a war, as it greatly injures their own lawful interests.

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

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

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

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

Thereupon he unfolds his proposition:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kamarowski finds this to be much more pronounced with regard to theEastern Question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not even so are all the causes of war removed from our continent. Many are to be found in therelations between Russia and Englandespecially two, says Kamarowski.

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

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

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

Also in the relations betweenRussia and Germanyare found indeed inflammable materials; but with wise action on both sides they may be got rid of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This view was represented in America by Dr.W. Ellery Channing, and Dr.Noah Worcester, who as early as 1814 stirred upthe friends of peace to organize themselves into united work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same year, too, were founded theLigue du Désarmementand theUnion de la Paix, at Havre.

But the most remarkable occurrence in this domain was the spontaneous interchange of addresses and greetings between workmen in France and Germany, which led to the formation, in Biebrich on the Rhine, of anAssociation of German and French workingmen.

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

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

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

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

From the commencement, the English and American peace societies have worked side by side with brotherly concord. There are over forty peace societies in America. Besides these already named—viz., theAmerican Peace Society, and theUniversal Peace Union—the following are most important:The Christian Arbitration and Peace Society, Philadelphia;the National Arbitration League, Washington;the American Friends' Peace Society, for Indiana and Ohio, founded December 1, 1873; andthe International Code Committee, New York, of which David Dudley Field is president.

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

In April, 1874, was formed theWomen's Auxiliary of the Peace Society. This continued to work in connection with the English parent society until 1882, when a division took place. Part of the members gathered themselves into an auxiliary, now called theLocal Peace Association Auxiliary of the Peace Society, which has thirty-three sub-associations in England only. The other part formed theWomen's Peace and Arbitration Association.[31]

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

In Italy aLeague of Peace and Brotherhoodwas founded asearly as 1878, by Signor E.T. Moneta.

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

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

At a meeting of members of the Riksdag, in the spring of 1883, aSwedish Peace Societywas formed, which has for its object to co-operate with theInternational Arbitration and Peace Associationof Great Britain and Ireland, in working for the preservation of peace among nations, and the establishment of an International Tribunal of Arbitration, under the mutual protection of the States, to which disputes thatmay arise may be referred. The first chairman of the society wasS.A. Hedlund, who has long laboured in Sweden for the spread of information as to the efforts of the friends of peace.

The same year aNorwegian Peace Societywas formed, which, however, like the Swedish sister association, has been apparently only dead-alive of late.

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

In France the peace societies received strength in 1884, throughthe foundation byM. Godinof theSociété de Paix et d' Arbitrage International du Familistère de Guise(Aisne), Godin's activity has embraced not less than forty-two departments in France. Besides these may be named theSociété d'Aide Fraternelle et d'Etudes Sociales, theSociété de Paix par l'Educationat Paris, theGroupe des Amis de la paix à Clermont-Ferrand,La Fraternité UniverselleGrammond, Canton de St. Galmier (Loire), and theAssociation des Jeunes Amis de la Paix, Nîmes.

TheInternational Arbitration and Peace Associationfor Great Britain and Ireland was founded in 1880.[34]This association, with which the Scandinavian society should co-operate the most closely, has a worthy chairman in Mr.Hodgson Pratt, a man whose devoted and untiring zeal has made him a distinguished leader of the peace movement, to which he has dedicated the whole business of his life.

Back to Index Next