chapter 32-34

(copyright, Dodd, Mead & Company, quoted with permission)._

"Anyone who has not served in the Sudan cannot conceive the state of devastation and misery to which that unfortunate country has been brought under Dervish rule. Miles and miles of formerly richly cultivated country lies waste; villages are deserted; the population has disappeared. Thousands of women are without homes or families. Years must elapse before the Sudan can recover from the results of its abandonment to Dervish tyranny; but it is to be hoped and may be confidently expected, that in course of time, under just and upright government, the Sudan may be restored to prosperity; and the great battle of September will be remembered as having established peace, without which prosperity would have been impossible; and from which thousands of misguided and wretched people will reap the benefits of civilization."

_E. S. Wortley, With the Sirdar (Scribner's Magazine, January, 1899)._

EGYPT: A. D. 1898. The country and its people after 15 years of British occupation.

"The British occupation has now lasted for over fifteen years. During the first five, comparatively little was accomplished, owing to the uncertain and provisional character of our tenure. The work done has been done in the main in the last ten years, and was only commenced in earnest when the British authorities began to realise that, whether we liked it or not, we had got to stay; and the Egyptians themselves came to the conclusion that we intended to stay. … Under our occupation Egypt has been rendered solvent and prosperous; taxes have been largely reduced; her population has increased by nearly 50 per cent.; the value and the productiveness of her soil has been greatly improved; a regular and permanent system of irrigation has been introduced into Lower Egypt, and is now in the course of introduction into Upper Egypt; trade and industry have made giant strides; the use of the Kurbash [bastinado] has been forbidden; the Corvée has been suppressed; regularity in the collection of taxes has been made the rule, and not the exception; wholesale corruption has been abolished; the Fellaheen can now keep the money they earn, and are better off than they were before; the landowners are all richer owing to the fresh supply of water, with the consequent rapid increase in the saleable price of land; justice is administered with an approach to impartiality; barbarous punishments have been mitigated, if not abolished; and the extraordinary conversion of Cairo into a fair semblance of a civilised European capital has been repeated on a smaller scale in all the chief centres of Egypt. To put the matter briefly, if our occupation were to cease to-morrow, we should leave Egypt and the Egyptians far better off than they were when our occupation commenced.

"If, however, I am asked whether we have succeeded in the alleged aim of our policy, that of rendering Egypt fit for self-government, I should be obliged honestly to answer that in my opinion we have made little or no progress towards the achievement of this aim. The one certain result of our interference in the internal administration of Egypt has been to impair, if not to destroy, the authority of the Khedive; of the Mudirs, who, as the nominees of the Effendina, rule over the provinces; and of the Sheiks, who, in virtue of the favour of the Mudirs, govern the villages. We have undoubtedly trained a school of native officials who have learnt that it is to their interest to administer the country more or less in accordance with British ideas. Here and there we may have converted an individual official to a genuine belief in these ideas. But I am convinced that if our troops were withdrawn, and our place in Egypt was not taken by any other civilised European Power, the old state of things would revive at once, and Egypt would be governed once more by the old system of Baksheesh and Kurbash."

_E. Dicey, Egypt, 1881 to 1897 (Fortnightly Review, May, 1898)._

{199}

Reviewing the report, for 1898, of Lord Cromer, the British Agent and Consul-General, who is practically the director of the government of Egypt, "The Spectator" (London) has noted the principle of Lord Cromer's administration to be that of "using English heads but Egyptian hands. In practice this means the policy of never putting an Englishman into any post which could be just as well filled by a native. In other words, the Englishman is only used in the administration where he is indispensable. Where he is not, the native, as is only just and right, is employed. The outcome of this is that Lord Cromer's work in Egypt has been carried out by 'a body of officials who certainly do not exceed one hundred in number, and might possibly, if the figures were vigorously examined, be somewhat lower.' Lord Cromer adds, however, that 'these hundred have been selected with the greatest care.' In fact, the principle has been,—never employ an Englishman unless it is necessary in the interests of good government to do so, but then employ a first-class man. The result is that the inspiring force in every Department of the Egyptian State is a first-class English brain, and yet the natives are not depressed by being deprived of their share of the administration. The Egyptians, that is, do not feel the legitimate grievance that is felt by the Tunisians and Algerians when they see even little posts of a couple of hundred a year filled by Frenchmen."

_Spectator, April 15, 1899._

EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (September-November). The French expedition of M. Marchand at Fashoda.

On the 10th of September, eight days after destroying the power of the Khalifa at Omdurman, the Sirdar, Lord Kitchener, left that fallen capital with five gunboats and a considerable force of Highlanders, Sudanese and Egyptians, to take possession of the Upper Nile. At Fashoda, in the Shilluk country, a little north of the junction of the Sobat with the White Nile, he found a party of eight French officers and about a hundred Senegalese troops, commanded by M. Marchand, entrenched at the old government buildings in that place and claiming occupation of the country. It had been known for some time that M. Marchand was leading an expedition from the French Congo towards the Nile, and the British government had been seeking an explanation of its objects from the government of France, uttering warnings, at the same time, that England would recognize no rights in any part of the Nile Valley except the rights of Egypt, which the evacuation of the Egyptian Sudan, consequent on the conquests of the Mahdi and the Dervishes, had not extinguished. Even long before the movements of M. Marchand were known, it had been suspected that France entertained the design of extending her great possessions in West Africa eastward, to connect with the Nile, and, as early as the spring of 1895, Sir Edward Grey, speaking for the British Foreign Office, in reply to a question then asked in the House of Commons, concerning rumors that a French expedition from West Africa was approaching the Nile, said with unmistakable meaning: "After all I have explained about the claims we consider we have under past Agreements, and the claims which we consider Egypt may have in the Nile Valley, and adding to that the fact that those claims and the view of the Government with regard to them are fully and clearly known to the French Government, I cannot think it is possible that these rumors deserve credence, because the advance of a French expedition under secret instructions right from the other side of Africa into a territory over which our claims have been known for so long would be not merely an inconsistent and unexpected act, but it must be perfectly well known to the French Government that it would be an unfriendly act, and would be so viewed by England." In December, 1897, the British Ambassador at Paris had called the attention of the French government to Sir Edward Grey's declaration, adding that "Her Majesty's present Government entirely adhere to the language that was on this occasion employed by their predecessors."

As between the two governments, then, such was the critical situation of affairs when the Sirdar, who had been already instructed how to act if he found intruders in the Nile Valley, came upon M. Marchand and his little party at Fashoda. The circumstances and the results of the meeting were reported by him promptly as follows: "On reaching the old Government buildings, over which the French flag was flying, M. Marchand, accompanied by Captain Germain, came on board. After complimenting them on their long and arduous journey, I proceeded at once to inform M. Marchand that I was authorized to state that the presence of the French at Fashoda and in the Valley of the Nile was regarded as a direct violation of the rights of Egypt and Great Britain, and that, in accordance with my instructions, I must protest in the strongest terms against their occupation of Fashoda, and their hoisting of the French flag in the dominions of His Highness the Khedive. In reply, M. Marchand stated that as a soldier he had to obey orders; the instructions of his Government to occupy the Bahr-el-Ghazal and the Mudirieh of Fashoda were precise, and, having carried them out, he must await the orders of his Government as to his subsequent action and movements. I then pointed out that I had the instructions of the Government to re-establish Egyptian authority in the Fashoda Mudirieh, and I asked M. Marchand whether he was prepared—on behalf of the French Government—to resist the execution of these orders; he must be fully aware, I said, that the Egyptian and British forces were very much more powerful than those at his disposal, but, at the same time, I was very averse to creating a situation which might lead to hostilities. I therefore begged M. Marchand to most carefully consider his final decision on this matter. I further informed him that I should be pleased to place one of the gun-boats at his disposal to convey him and his expedition north. In answer to this, M. Marchand did not hesitate to admit the preponderating forces at my disposal, and his inability to offer effective armed resistance; if, however, he said, I felt obliged to take any such action, he could only submit, to the inevitable, which would mean that he and his companions would die at their posts. He begged, therefore, that I would consider his position, and would allow the question of his remaining at Fashoda to be referred to his Government, as, without their orders, he could not retire from his position or haul down his flag; at the same time, he said he felt sure that, under the circumstances, the orders for his retirement would not be delayed by his Government, and that then he hoped to avail himself of the offer I had made him. I then said to him: 'Do I understand that you are authorized by the French Government to resist Egypt in putting up its flag and reasserting its authority in its former possessions—such as the Mudirieh of Fashoda?' M. Marchand hesitated, and then said that he could not resist the Egyptian flag being hoisted. I replied that my instructions were to hoist the flag, and that I intended to do so. … The Egyptian flag was hoisted … at 1 P. M. with due ceremony in the presence of the British and Egyptian troops, and a salute of twenty-one guns was fired. {200} I should add that, in the course of the conversation, I informed M. Marchand that, in addition to my verbal protest, I intended to make a formal protest in writing, and this I duly handed him before leaving Fashoda. During these somewhat delicate proceedings nothing could have exceeded, the politeness and courtesy of the French officers. Having officially appointed Major Jackson Commandant of the Fashoda district, and leaving with him a battalion of infantry, four guns, and a gun-boat, I proceeded south with the remainder of the troops and four gun-boats. …

"I had no opportunity for a further interview with M. Marchand, who, I venture to think, holds at Fashoda a most anomalous position—encamped with 120 men on a narrow strip of land, surrounded by marshes, cut off from access to the interior, possessing only three small boats without oars or sails and an inefficient steam-launch which has lately been dispatched on along journey south, short of ammunition and supplies, his followers exhausted by years of continuous hardship, yet still persisting in the prosecution of his impracticable undertaking in the face of the effective occupation and administration of the country I have been able to establish. It is impossible not to entertain the highest admiration for the courage, devotion, and indomitable spirit displayed by M. Marchand's expedition, but our general impression was one of astonishment that an attempt should have been made to carry out a project of such magnitude and danger by the dispatch of so small and ill-equipped a force which—as their Commander remarked to me, was neither in a position to resist a second Dervish attack nor to retire—indeed, had our destruction of the Khalifa's power at Omdurman been delayed a fortnight, in all probability he and his companions would have been massacred. The claims of M. Marchand to have occupied the Bahr-el-Ghazal and Fashoda Provinces with the force at his disposal would be ludicrous did not the sufferings and privations his expedition endured during their two years' arduous journey render the futility of their efforts pathetic."

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications (Papers by Command: Egypt, Numbers 2 and 3, 1898)._

The "Fashoda incident," as it was described, caused great excitement in both England and France, and threatened for some weeks to involve the two countries in war. Both army feeling and popular feeling in France very nearly forced the government to persist in what was plainly an ill-considered and inopportune movement, and to hold untenable ground. But better sense prevailed, and, on the 2d of November, when the Sirdar, Lord Kitchener, who had visited England, was being feasted and given the freedom of London, at Guildhall, Lord Salisbury was able to make a dramatic announcement of the closing of the dispute. "I received," he said, speaking at the banquet, "from the French ambassador this afternoon the information that the French Government had come to the conclusion that the occupation of Fashoda was of no sort of value to the French Republic, and they thought that, under those circumstances, to persist in an occupation which only cost them money and did them harm, merely because some people—some bad advisers—thought it might be disagreeable to an unwelcome neighbor, would not show the wisdom with which, I think, the French Republic has been uniformly guided, and they have done what I believe many other governments would have done in the same position—they have resolved that the occupation must cease."

EGYPT: A. D. 1898-1899. The Gordon Memorial College at Khartoum.

On an appeal from Lord Kitchener, funds were raised in Great Britain for the founding of a Gordon Memorial College at Khartoum, to be, in the first instance, a school for elementary instruction to the sons of the heads of districts and villages.

EGYPT: A. D. 1898-1901. The Barrage and Reservoir works on the Nile.

In February, 1898, the Khedive in Council approved a contract concluded with the British firm of John Aird & Company, for the construction of a dam or "barrage" across the Nile at Assouan, drowning the cataracts and turning the river above into a vast storage reservoir; with another dam at Assiout, for the irrigation of Middle Egypt and the Fayum. In the report of Lord Cromer for 1898, Sir William Garstein, at the head of the Egyptian Public Works Department, gave the following description of the plan of the works, then fairly under way: "The dam which is to form the reservoir will be built at the first cataract, a few miles south of Assouan. It is designed to hold up water to a level of 106 metres above mean sea level, or rather more than 20 metres above the low-water level of the Nile at site. Its total length will be 2,156 yards with a width at crest of 26.4 feet. The width of base at the deepest portion will be 82.5 feet, and the height of the work at the deepest spot will be 92.4 feet. The dam will be pierced by 180 openings, or under-sluices (140 of which are 23.1 feet by 6.6 feet and 40 are 18.2 feet by 6.6 feet) provided with gates. These sluices will pass the flood and surplus water through the dam, and by them the reservoir will be emptied when water is required for irrigation in Middle and Lower Egypt. Three locks will be built, and a navigation channel made on the west of the river to enable boats to pass up and down.

"The dam at Assiout will be what is called an open Barrage, and will be similar in construction to the existing Barrages on the Rosetta and Damietta branches. The new work will consist of 111 bays or openings, each 16.5 feet wide, and each bay will be provided with regulating gates. The total length of the work will be 903 yards. A lock 53 feet in width will be constructed on the west bank, large enough to pass the largest tourist boat plying on the river. By regulating on this Barrage water will be supplied in spring and summer to the Ibrahimieh Canal, which irrigates Middle Egypt. At present this canal has to be dredged to a depth of some 2 metres below the lowest summer level in the river, and even with these the crops suffer in years of low summer supply. A regulation bridge with a lock will be built at the head of the Ibrahimieh Canal in order to allow of the supply being reduced, if necessary, in flood."

_Great Britain, Papers by Command: Egypt, Number 3, 1899._

By a singular happening, the Nile flood of 1899 was the lowest recorded in the century, and gave an opportunity for the barrage and irrigation works, barely begun as they were, to give a convincing foretaste of their value. According to the report of that year, "the distress was enormously less than on all previous occasions of a failure of the flood. The area of 'sharaki,' or land unirrigated and therefore untaxed, which had been 900,000 feddans in 1877 was only one-third of this in 1899. {201} Even in this area, which lay principally in Upper Egypt, 'distress,' says Sir William Garstein, 'was hardly felt at all by the people. The immense amount of contract work in progress in the country enabled them to obtain a good daily wage and tided over the interval between the two crops.' In Lower Egypt 'the situation was saved by the Barrage, which, for the first time in its history, was regulated upon throughout the flood. Had it not been for the work done by this structure, there is little doubt that large areas of crop would have been lost. As it is, the cotton crop is very nearly the largest on record, and the maize crop was up to the average.'" Of the progress of the work at Assouan it is said: "After nearly a year had been spent in accumulation of material and various preparations, the foundation stone of the dam was laid by H. R. H. the Duke of Connaught on February 12; and from that date the work was carried on with less interruption than must have been necessitated by a normal flood. Beginning on the east bank, masonry was carried on throughout a length of 620 metres, and of these, 360 metres were brought up to within two metres of their full height. … Not less satisfactory progress was made with the weir at Assiut, although the original design had to be considerably altered."

On the 7th of February, 1901, a Press despatch from Cairo reported: "Sir John Aird and Sir Benjamin Baker start for England on Sunday next, having completed their visit of inspection to the great engineering works at Assuan, where the immense dam to hold up the waters of the Nile is being constructed. The total extent of the dam is one mile and a quarter, of which one mile and an eighth of the foundation is finished. Temporary dams enabling the remaining section to be put in are now carried across the channel. Pumps for getting in the permanent dam foundations will be started next week. The whole of the granite masonry required for the dam is cut and ready to be laid in its place. The parapet alone remains to be prepared. The portion of the dam remaining to be built is that across the well-known deep western channel. The work is of considerable difficulty, but the experience gained last season in dealing with other channels has rendered the engineers and contractors confident that equal success will be obtained this year in the western channel. The dam is pierced with 180 openings, about 23 feet high and 7 feet wide, which openings are controlled by steel sluices. The work for the latter is now well advanced. The discharge through these sluices at high Nile may reach 15,000 tons of water per second. The navigation channel and chain of locks are equally advanced with the dam itself, and the lock gates will also be in course of construction in about three months. Unless anything unforeseen occurs the reservoirs will be in operation for the Nile flood of 1903. This will be well within the contract time, although owing to the increased depth of the foundations the work done by the contractors has been largely increased.

"At Assiut the great regulating dam across the Nile approaches completion, the foundations being practically all in position, leaving a portion of the superstructure to be completed. The sluice openings here number 119, all 16 feet wide. This dam is somewhat similar in principle to the well-known barrage near Cairo, but the details of construction are entirely different, as the foundations are guarded against undermining by a complete line of cast iron and steel-piling above and below the work. The barrage itself is constructed of high-class masonry instead of brickwork as at the old barrage. Although the Assiut barrage is overshadowed by the greater magnitude of the Assuan dam, it will, doubtless, rank second as the monumental work of Egypt."

EGYPT: A. D. 1899 (January). The Anglo-Egyptian Condominium established in the Sudan.

The following agreement between the British government and that of the Khedive of Egypt, relative to the future administration of the Sudan, establishing a condominium or joint dominion therein, was signed at Cairo on the 19th of January, 1899, and made public the same day:

Whereas certain provinces in the Sudan which were in rebellion against the authority of His Highness the Khedive have now been reconquered by the joint military and financial efforts of Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of His Highness the Khedive; and whereas it has become necessary to decide upon a system for the administration of and for the making of laws for the said reconquered provinces, under which due allowance may be made for the backward and unsettled condition of large portions thereof, and for the varying requirements of different localities; and whereas it is desired to give effect to the claims which have accrued to Her Britannic Majesty's Government by right of conquest, to share in the present settlement and future working and development of the said system of administration and legislation; and whereas it is conceived that for many purposes Wadi Haifa and Suákin may be most effectively administered in conjunction with the reconquered provinces to which they are respectively adjacent; now, it is hereby agreed and declared by and between the Undersigned, duly authorized for that purpose, as follows:

ARTICLE I. The word "Sudan" in this Agreement means all the territories South of the 22nd parallel of latitude, which:

1. Have never been evacuated by Egyptian troops since the year 1882; or

2. Which, having before the late rebellion in the Sudan been administered by the Government of His Highness the Khedive, were temporarily lost to Egypt, and have been reconquered by Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government acting in concert; or

3. Which may hereafter be reconquered by the two Governments acting in concert.

ARTICLE II. The British and Egyptian flags shall be used together, both on land and water, throughout the Sudan, except in the town of Suákin, in which locality the Egyptian flag alone shall be used.

ARTICLE III. The supreme military and civil command in the Sudan shall be vested in one officer, termed the "Governor-General of the Sudan." He shall be appointed by Khedivial Decree on the recommendation of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, and shall be removed only by Khedivial Decree, with the consent of Her Britannic Majesty's Government.

{202}

ARTICLE IV. Laws, as also Orders and Regulations with the full force of law, for the good government of the Sudan, and for regulating the holding, disposal, and devolution of property of every kind therein situate, may from time to time be made, altered, or abrogated by Proclamation of the Governor-General. Such Laws, Orders, and Regulations may apply to the whole of any named part of the Sudan, and may, either explicitly or by necessary implication, alter or abrogate any existing Law or Regulation. All such Proclamations shall be forthwith notified to Her Britannic Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Cairo, and to the President of the Council of Ministers of His Highness the Khedive.

ARTICLE V. No Egyptian Law, Decree, Ministerial Arrêté, or other enactment hereafter to be made or promulgated shall apply to the Sudan or any part thereof, save in so far as the same shall be applied by Proclamation of the Governor-General in manner hereinbefore provided.

ARTICLE VI. In the definition by Proclamation of the conditions under which Europeans, of whatever nationality, shall be at liberty to trade with or reside in the Sudan, or to hold property within its limits, no special privileges shall be accorded to the subjects of anyone or more Power.

ARTICLE VII. Import duties on entering the Sudan shall not be payable on goods coming from Egyptian territory. Such duties may, however, be levied on goods coming from elsewhere than Egyptian territory, but in the case of goods entering the Sudan at Suákin, or any other port on the Red Sea Littoral, they shall not exceed the corresponding duties for the time being leviable on goods entering Egypt from abroad. Duties may be levied on goods leaving the Sudan at such rates as may from time to time be prescribed by Proclamation.

ARTICLE VIII. The jurisdiction of the Mixed Tribunals shall not extend, nor be recognized for any purpose whatsoever, in any part of the Sudan, except in the town of Suákin.

ARTICLE IX. Until, and save so far as it shall be otherwise determined, by Proclamation, the Sudan, with the exception of the town of Suákin, shall be and remain under martial law.

ARTICLE X. No Consuls, Vice-Consuls, or Consular Agents shall be accredited in respect of nor allowed to reside in the Sudan, without the previous consent of Her Britannic Majesty's Government.

ARTICLE XI. The importation of slaves into the Sudan, as also their exportation, is absolutely prohibited. Provision shall be made by Proclamation for the enforcement of this Regulation.

ARTICLE XII. It is agreed between the two Governments that special attention shall be paid to the enforcement of the Brussels Act of the 2nd July 1890, in respect to the import, sale, and manufacture of fire-arms and their munitions, and distilled or spirituous liquors.

Done in Cairo, the 19th January, 1899. (Signed) Boutros Ghali-Cromer.

_A. S. White, The Expansion of Egypt, Appendix V. (New York: New Amsterdam Book Company)_

By a subsequent, agreement signed July 10, the exceptions in the above relative to Suákin were abrogated.

EGYPT: A. D. 1899-1900. Final defeat and death of the Khalifa. Capture of Osman Digna. Condition of the Sudan.

The Khalifa, who escaped from the scene of his overthrow at Omdurman, in 1898, kept a following of his own tribe, the Baggaras, sufficient to give trouble for more than another year. At length, late in November, 1899, he was overtaken by Sir Francis Wingate, who succeeded General Kitchener as Governor-General of the Sudan, and was killed in a battle fought near Gedil. Again Osman Digna, his able lieutenant, escaped; but in January of the following year the latter was captured and taken to Suez.

In a report to Lord Salisbury, made on the 20th of February, 1900, Lord Cromer, British Agent and Consul-General in Egypt, gave the following account of the general state of affairs in the Sudan:

"The territorial situation may be briefly described as follows:—The frontier between the Soudan and the Italian Colony of Erythræa has now been delimitated from Ras Kasar, on the Red Sea, to Sabderat, a few miles east of Kassala. Negotiations are proceeding which will, without doubt, result before long in the delimitation of the small remaining portion of the Italian frontier from Sabderat up to the point where it strikes Abyssinian territory. The most friendly relations exist between the British and Abyssinian Governments. The general basis of a frontier arrangement in respect to the country lying west of the Blue Nile has already been settled with the Emperor Menelek. When the survey party, now being employed, has finished its work, it may confidently be expected that the detailed delimitation will be carried out without much difficulty.

"An endeavour is being made to cut through the sudd which obstructs the White Nile, and thus open up communication with Uganda. To a certain extent this communication may be said to be already established, for a mixed party, consisting of British, French, and Belgian officers, with their followers, arriving from the South, recently succeeded in getting through and joining the Egyptian party, under Major Peake, which was engaged in cutting the sudd. … From the moment of the Khalifa's crushing defeat at Omdurman, the desert and Kordofan tribes, with the exception of a certain number of Baggaras who still adhered to the cause of their Chief, threw in their lot with the Government. Most of these tribes, however, rendered but little active assistance to the Government in the subsequent operations against the Khalifa. Omdurman and the Ghezireh [the tract of country lying south of Khartoum, between the White and Blue Niles] were found to be full of Arabs belonging to the Kordofan and far western tribes, who had been brought from their homes by the Khalifa. They were without any regular means of subsistence, but, in the existing state of insecurity, it was for the time being impossible for them to return to their own districts. … The inhabitants of the districts which were raided by the Dervishes were obliged to take refuge in the Ghezireh, with the result that the situation remained practically unchanged until the Khalifa's overthrow and death. Since then, the main objects of the Government have been to send back to their homes the inhabitants of the gum producing region, and to get rid of the useless mouths from the Ghezireh. In respect to the first point, some success has attended their efforts, but many thousands of Arabs belonging to tribes whose homes are in Kordofan and Darfour, still remain in the Ghezireh. … The attitude of the Nubas and of other tribes in Central and Southern Kordofan has, since the battle of Omdurman, been perfectly satisfactory. … Some long time must certainly elapse before prosperity returns to the tribes in the Soudan. The population has wasted away under Dervish rule."

_Great Britain, Papers by Command: Egypt, Number 1, 1900, pages 43-44._

----------EGYPT: End--------

{203}

ELAM.

See (in volume 1) BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE;

(in volume 4) SEMITES;

and (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA, and PERSIA.

ELANDSLAAGTE, Battle of.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

ELBE-RHINE CANAL PROJECT, The.

See (in this volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (AUGUST); and 1901 (JANUARY).

EL CANEY, Battle of.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).

ELECTRICAL SCIENCE, Recent advances in.

See (in this volume) SCIENCE, RECENT: ELECTRICAL.

ELIZABETH, Empress of Austria: Assassination.

See (in this volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER).

EL ZANJON, Treaty of.

See (in this volume) CUBA: A. D. 1868-1885.

EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION, British.

See (in this volume) INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES; A. D. 1897.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL, The English.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JULY).

EMPRESS-DOWAGER, of China, The.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (OCTOBER), and after.

ENGINEERS, Strike and lockout of British.

See (in this volume) INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1897.

----------ENGLAND (GREAT BRITAIN): Start--------

ENGLAND: A. D. 1894. The commandeering question with the South African Republic.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1894.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895. Retirement of Mr. Gladstone from public life. Earl of Rosebery Prime Minister. His speech on the "predominant member" and Home Rule. Weakening and overthrow of the Liberal Government. Dissolution of Parliament. Conservative and Unionist triumph. Third Ministry of Lord Salisbury.

Mr. Gladstone, who had passed his 84th year, whose health was failing, and who might justly consider that his public work was done, resigned his post as Prime Minister, on the 2d of March, 1894, and the Earl of Rosebery, on his recommendation, was called by the Queen to take his place. Slight changes, otherwise, were made in the cabinet, but the spirit in the Liberal government was no longer the same. The new Premier soon signified that his disposition in the matter of Home Rule for Ireland was not quite what Mr. Gladstone's had been, by using the following language in a speech (March 13) in the House of Lords:

"Before Irish Home Rule is conceded by the Imperial Parliament England, as the predominant member of the partnership of the three kingdoms, will have to be convinced of its justice. That may seem to be a considerable admission to make, because your lordships will know that the majority of English members of Parliament, ejected from England proper, are hostile to Home Rule. But I believe that the conviction of England in regard to Home Rule depends on one point alone, and that is the conduct of Ireland herself. I believe that if we can go on showing this comparative absence of agrarian crime; if we can point to the continued harmony of Ireland with the great Liberal party of this country; if we can go on giving proofs and pledges that Ireland is entitled to be granted that boon which she has never ceased to demand since the Act of Union was passed. I believe that the conversion of England will not be of a slow or difficult character. My lords, the question of Home Rule is one that I regard not from the point of view of Ireland only. It has for me a triple aspect. It has, in the first place, the aspect that I believe that Ireland will never be contented until this measure of Home Rule be granted to her; and that, though you may come in on other issues and succeed us who sit here, your policy of palliatives is bound to fail. In the second place, I believe that not merely have we in our Irish policy to satisfy those who live in the island of Ireland itself, encompassed, as Mr. Disraeli once said, by that melancholy ocean, we have not merely to satisfy the Irish themselves within Ireland, but, for the good of our Empire and for the continuity and solidarity of our relations with our brethren across the Atlantic, it is necessary that we should produce an Irish policy which shall satisfy the Irish people. And, lastly, I view it from the highest Imperial grounds, because I believe that the maintenance of this Empire depends, not on centralization, but on decentralization, and that if you once commence to tread this path, you will have to give satisfaction under the same conditions certainly to Scotland, and possibly to Wales, not in the same degree or possibly in the same way, but so as to relieve this groaning Imperial Parliament from the burden of legislation under which it labours. I will not detain you further on this subject to-night. I did not mean to dilate so much on the question of Home Rule."

His remarks seemed to show an intention to postpone the pressing of the measure. Distrust arose among the Irish and uncertainty was created in the mind of the Liberal party. It became evident very quickly that the Liberals, with the loss of their old leader, had lost heart and faith in the policy to which he had committed them, and that a serious weakening of the political energies of the party had been produced. No measures which raised troublesome issues were undertaken in Parliament during the year of Mr. Gladstone's retirement: but, at the session which opened in the following February (1895), the government brought forward a number of high]y important bills.

{204}

The first to be introduced was a bill "to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouth." The bill made provision for the creation of a representative Church body, giving power to the bishops, clergy and laity to hold synods and to legislate on ecclesiastical matters. It entrusted ecclesiastical revenues to a commission; provided for the transfer of churches and parsonages to the representative body of the Church, and of burial grounds and glebes to parish, district, and town councils; other property of the Church to be vested in the commission before mentioned, which should also have the charge of cathedrals, to keep them in repair. The bill had its first reading on the 28th of February, and its second on the 1st of April, but went no further. It shared the fate of the other measures of the Government, including a bill to establish local control of the liquor traffic, and others for the remedying of defects in the Irish Land Law, and for the abolition of plural voting, all of which were extinguished by the sudden and unexpected overthrow of the Government on the 21st of June. It was defeated on a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary for War, which was made for no purpose but to start a question as to the adequacy of the provision of certain ammunition stored for use. When the vote was found to be against the Government there was great surprise in both parties. But the Ministry had been steadily losing support and was quite willing to resign, which it did the next day. Lord Salisbury was sent for by the Queen and accepted the task of forming a new Government, with the understanding that Parliament should be dissolved as soon as practicable, and the will of the country ascertained. In the new Government, Lord Salisbury filled the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with that of Prime Minister; Mr. A. J. Balfour became First Lord of the Treasury; Sir Michael Hicks-Beach Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Joseph Chamberlain Secretary of State for the Colonies; Mr. G. J. Goschen First Lord of the Admiralty. Before the dissolution of Parliament, which occurred on the 6th of July, a bill for the amendment of the Factories Act, on which both parties agreed, was passed. The elections that followed, beginning July 13, resulted in the return of a majority of 152 in favor of the new Ministry, which represented the coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists. The majority of the popular vote on the same side in the three kingdoms was a little more than 30,000, in a total poll of 4,792,512; but in Eng]and the new Government received a majority of some 300,000. In Ireland the vote went heavily against them, and in Wales and Scotland to a lighter extent. Of the Irish members elected, 12 were of the Parnell faction and 69 Anti-Parnell. The new Parliament came together August 12, and, after a brief session, at which little was done, was prorogued September 5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895. Enforcement of claims against Nicaragua.

See (in this volume) CENTRAL AMERICA (NICARAGUA): A. D. 1894-1895.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895. The question of Chitral.

See (in this volume) INDIA: A. D. 1895 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (January). Agreement with France defining the boundaries of the Hinterland of Sierra Leone.

See (in this volume) SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (March-July). Agreement with Russia concerning the northern Afghan frontier and spheres of influence in the Pamir region.

See (in this volume) AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1895.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (July-November). Correspondence with the Government of the United States on the Venezuela boundary question.

See (in this volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (JULY) and (NOVEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (November). Action on the closing of the Vaal River Drifts by the South African Republic.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1895 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895 (December). Message of the President of the United States to Congress on the British Guiana-Venezuela boundary dispute.

See (in this volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895-1896 (November-January). Discontent and revolutionary conspiracy of Uitlanders in the Transvaal. The Jameson Raid.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1895 (NOVEMBER); and A. D. 1895-1896.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1895-1896 (December-January). The feeling in England and America over the Venezuela boundary dispute.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895-1896 (DECEMBER-JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896. Establishment of the Sierra Leone Protectorate.

See (in this volume) SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896. Report on Old-Age Pensions.

The question of the practicability and expediency of a national system of pensions for old age, which had been agitated in England for some years, and which a royal commission, appointed in 1893, had already examined with great thoroughness and no definite result, was referred in 1896 to a committee of financial experts, with Lord Rothschild at their head. This committee reported that it could recommend no scheme as satisfactory, though it put forward that of Sir Spencer Walpole as open to less objection than others. The scheme in question was as follows:

"1. Any person at 65 having an assured income of not less than 2s. 6d. and not more than 5s. may apply for a pension.

2. If the pensioning authority is satisfied as to the income a pension may be granted.

3. The applicant must not be physically or mentally infirm.

4. To an income of 2s. 6d. 2s. 6d. is to be added. To an income of 3s. 0d. 2s. 0d. is to be added. To an income of 4s. 0d. 1s. 0d. is to be added.

5. 'Assured income' includes real estate, leasehold property, securities, or annuities (Government, friendly society, or insurance office), but not out-relief.

6. The guardians are to be the pensioning authority.

7. Not more than half of the pension is to be paid out of Imperial taxation, the remainder out of local rates.

8. The pension is not to involve disenfranchisement."

The committee, however, pointed out some very strong objections to this scheme, which they roughly estimated as likely to apply to 443,333 persons, and to cost £2,300,000 a year. On the whole, while they regarded the Walpole scheme as the best suggested, the Rothschild committee held that, like the rest, its inherent disadvantages outweighed its merits. In effect, they pronounced the establishment of old-age pensions to be impracticable.

{205}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896. Report of Royal Commission on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland.

See (in this volume) IRELAND: A. D. 1896-1897.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (January). Agreement with France concerning Siam.

See (in this volume) SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (January). Excitement over the German Emperor's message to President Kruger on the Jameson Raid.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1896 (JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (January-February). Appointment of United States Commission to investigate the Venezuela boundary. Reopening of discussion with the government of the United States on the arbitration of the dispute.

See (in this volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (February). New treaty with the United States for arbitration of Bering Sea claims.

See (in this volume) BERING SEA QUESTIONS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (March-September). Expedition to Dongola. Beginning of an Anglo-Egyptian movement for the recovery of the Sudan.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (May). The New Radical party.

A New Radical party, under the leadership of Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Labouchere, issued a statement of its policy (May 19), setting forth as its chief aim "the democritisation and devolution of Parliament."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (June). The Agricultural Land Bill.

Among the measures brought forward in Parliament this year and carried by the Conservative government was one which aroused bitter feeling and was sharply denounced, as being legislation in the interest of the landholding class, at the expense of the community at large. A ground of justice for it was found by its supporters, however, in the extreme agricultural depression of the time. This Agricultural Land Bill, as it was styled, provided that, in the case of every rate to which it applied, agricultural land should be assessed in future on half its ratable value, while houses and buildings would still be assessed on the whole of their ratable value. The bill passed the Commons near the end of June, and went speedily through the House of Lords.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (July). Parliamentary movement to investigate the British South Africa Company.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY); A. D. 1896 (JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (August). Suppression of an usurper in Zanzibar.

See (in this volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1896 (ZANZIBAR).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (September). Papal Bull declaring Anglican orders invalid.

See (in this volume) PAPACY: A. D. 1896 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (November). Agreement with the United States for the settlement of the Venezuela dispute.

See (in this volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896-1897. "The Voluntary Schools Act" and "The Elementary Education Act."

The Conservative Ministry of Lord Salisbury came to power, in England, in 1895, under pledges to the Church that it would revise the educational system in the interest of the "Voluntary Schools" (mostly Church schools), as against the secular or non-sectarian "Board Schools" which were steadily gaining ground from the former, and proving superior efficiency.

See, in volume 1, EDUCATION, MODERN: ENGLAND: A. D. 1699-1870.

A bill to that end, for England and Wales, was introduced at the end of March, 1896. In support of the bill it was stated that, in the previous year, the voluntary schools educated 2,445,812 children, as against 1,879,218 educated in the board schools, though the voluntary schools were, as a rule, "understaffed," had less qualified teachers, and labored generally under financial difficulties; but that a large proportion of the members of the Church of England, as well as Roman Catholics, made it a point of conscience that their children should be educated by teachers of their own denomination, and could not be forced to send them to board schools without a gross exercise of religious intolerance; that, finally, it would cost £25,345,635 to replace the voluntary schools, and £2,250,000 yearly to maintain board schools in their place, if they were not kept up. Therefore, it was contended that they should receive a more liberal allowance of state aid by parliamentary grant, to keep them alive and improve their efficiency. Connected with provisions to that effect were others which would completely reorganize the system of school administration and control. They proposed to take the administration to a great extent from the Committee of Council on Education, where it had been centralized, and to place it in the County Councils, to be exercised by statutory educational committees appointed by each Council. By what was called a "conscience clause," the bill required separate religious instruction to be given to children in schools (board or voluntary) wherever a "reasonable number of parents" required it. The measure was strenuously opposed on the ground that its aim was the extinction of the board schools; that it would give them only £17,000 out of £500,000, and give it, said Lord Rosebery, "without any vestige of control, so that in 8,000 places where only Church of England schools existed the Nonconformists would have only the vague protection of the conscience clause." So much debate was provoked by the bill, and so much time was being consumed by it, that the Government was forced to drop the measure in June, in order to save the other business of the session from being spoiled,—promising, however, to bring it forward again the next January. The promise was redeemed, on the convening of Parliament in January, 1897, in so far that a new Education Bill was brought forward by the government; but the measure was very different from that of the previous session. It was addressed solely to the end of strengthening the voluntary or Church schools against the board schools, firstly by increasing the aid to them from public funds, and secondly by uniting them in organized associations, under stronger governing bodies. The main provisions of the bill were as follows:

"(1.) For aiding voluntary schools there shall be annually paid out of moneys provided by Parliament an aid grant, not exceeding in the aggregate five shillings per scholar for the whole number of scholars in those schools.

{206}

"(2.) The aid grant shall be distributed by the Education Department to such voluntary schools and in such manner and amounts, as the Department think best for the purpose of helping necessitous schools and increasing their efficiency, due regard being had to the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions.

"(3.) If associations of schools are constituted in such manner in such areas and with such governing bodies representative of the managers as are approved by the Education Department, there shall be allotted to each association while so approved, (_a_) a share of the aid grant to be computed according to the number of scholars in the schools of the association at the rate of five shillings per scholar, or, if the Department fix different rates for town and country schools respectively (which they are hereby empowered to do) then at those rates; and (_b_) a corresponding share of any sum which may be available out of the aid grant after distribution has been made to unassociated schools.

"(4.) The share so allotted to each such association shall be distributed as aforesaid by the Education Department after consulting the governing body of the association, and in accordance with any scheme prepared by that body which the Department for the time being approve.

"(5.) The Education Department may exclude a school from any share of the aid grant which it might otherwise receive, if, in the opinion of the Department, it unreasonably refuses or fails to join such an association, but the refusal or failure shall not be deemed unreasonable if the majority of the schools in the association belong to a religious denomination to which the school in question does not itself belong.

"(6.) The Education Department may require, as a condition of a school receiving a share of the aid grant, that the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the school shall be annually audited in accordance with the regulations of the Department.

"(7.) The decision of the Education Department upon any question relating to the distribution or allotment of the aid grant, including the question whether an association is or is not in conformity with this Act, and whether a school is a town or a country school, shall be final."

The passage of the bill was resisted strenuously by the Liberals in the House of Commons. "Whether they regarded the bill from an educational, a constitutional, a parliamentary, or a social aspect," said Mr. John Morley, in his concluding speech in the debate, "he and his friends regarded it as a mischievous and reactionary measure." But the opposition was of no avail. The bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons, on the 25th of March, with a majority of 200 in its favor, the Irish Nationalists giving it their support. In the House of Lords it was ruled to be a money bill, which their lordships could not amend, and they passed it with little debate. In April, the government brought forward a second school bill, which increased the parliamentary grant to Board schools by £110,000. The sum was so trivial that it excited the scorn of the friends of the Board schools, and did nothing towards conciliating them. It became a law on the 3d of June.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1896-1897 (May-April). Continued controversies with the South African Republic.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1896-1897 (MAY-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (January-May). Arbitration Treaty with the United States defeated in the United States Senate.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (JANUARY-MAY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (February). Indemnity for Jameson Raid claimed by the South African Republic.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (February). Loan for national defense. Purchase of 60 square miles on Salisbury Plain.

A bill which authorized a loan of £5,458,000 for purposes of national defense was passed rapidly through both Houses of Parliament in February. It included an item of £450,000 for the purchase of 40,000 acres (60 square miles) on Salisbury Plain, for military manœuvres.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (February). Punitive expedition against Benin.

See (in this volume) NIGERIA: A. D. 1897.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (February-July). Parliamentary investigation of the Jameson Raid.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (April). Increase of armament in South Africa. The Government accused of a war policy.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (May). Treaty with Menelek of Abyssinia.

See (in this volume) ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1897.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (May-June). New cessions and concessions from China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (May-July). The Workmen's Compensation Act.

A subject which had grown urgent, in England, for parliamentary attention, was that of a better provision in law for securing proper compensation to workmen for accidental injuries suffered in the course of their employment. The measure was not one that a Conservative government would be likely, under ordinary circumstances, to take up; since the class of large employers of labor, from which opposition to it came, were mostly in the Conservative ranks. But the Liberal Unionists, now in parliamentary coalition with the Conservatives, were called upon to favor such a piece of legislation by their creed, and rumor said that they bargained for it with their political partners, in exchange for the support they gave unwillingly to the Voluntary Schools Bill. At all events, a bill which was first called the Employers' Liability Bill, but finally named the Workmen's Compensation Bill, was brought in to the House of Commons, by the government, in May, and was carried, after much debate, through both Houses in July. The essential provisions of the Act as passed are the following:

"I. (1.) If in any employment to which this Act applies personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as herein-after mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.

{207}

(2.) Provided that:

(a.) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of any injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least two weeks from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed;

(b.) When the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer, or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the workman may, at his option, either claim compensation under this Act, or take the same proceedings as were open to him before the commencement of this Act; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation for injury to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to any proceedings independently of this Act, except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act as aforesaid;

(c.) If it is proved that the injury to a workman is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that workman, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed.

(3.) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability to pay compensation under this Act (including any question as to whether the employment is one to which this Act applies), or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act. …

"2. (1.) Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and before the workman has voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured, and unless the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within six months from the time of death. …

"3. (1.) If the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after taking steps to ascertain the views of the employer and workmen, certifies that any scheme of compensation, benefit, or insurance for the workmen of an employer in any employment, whether or not such scheme includes other employers and their workmen, is on the whole not less favourable to the general body of workmen and their dependants than the provisions of this Act, the employer may, until the certificate is revoked, contract with any of those workmen that the provisions of the scheme shall be substituted for the provisions of this Act, and thereupon the employer shall be liable only in accordance with the scheme, but, save as aforesaid, this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary made after the commencement of this Act. …

"7. (1.) This Act shall apply only to employment by the undertakers as herein-after defined, on or in or about a railway, factory, mine, quarry, or engineering work, and to employment by the undertakers as herein-after defined on, in or about any building which exceeds thirty feet in height, and is either being constructed or repaired by means of a scaffolding, or being demolished, or on which machinery driven by steam, water, or other mechanical power, is being used for the purpose of the construction, repair, or demolition thereof.

(2.) In this Act— … 'Undertakers' in the case of a railway means the railway company; in the case of a factory, quarry, or laundry means the occupier thereof within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1878 to 1895; in the case of a mine means the owner thereof within the meaning of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, or the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872, as the case may be, and in the case of an engineering work means the person undertaking the construction, alteration, or repair; and in the case of a building means the persons undertaking the construction, repair, or demolition. … 'Workman' includes every person who is engaged in an employment to which this Act applies, whether by way of manual labour or otherwise, and whether his agreement is one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise, and is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing."

The "First Schedule" referred to in the first section of the Act prescribes rules for determining compensation, those principally important being as follows; "The amount of compensation under this Act shall be—(a) where death results from the injury—(i) if the workman leaves any dependants wholly dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, a sum equal to his earnings in the employment of the same employer during the three years next preceding the injury, or the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, whichever of those sums is the larger, but not exceeding in any case three hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act shall be deducted from such sum, and if the period of the workman's employment by the said employer has been less than the said three years, then the amount of his earnings during the said three years shall be deemed to be 156 times his average weekly earnings during the period of his actual employment under the said employer;

(ii) if the workman does not leave any such dependants, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death, such sum, not exceeding in any case the amount payable under the foregoing provisions, as may be agreed upon, or, in default of agreement, may be determined, on arbitration under this Act, to be reasonable and proportionate to the injury to the said dependants; and

(iii) if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and burial, not exceeding ten pounds; (b) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, a weekly payment during the incapacity after the second week not exceeding fifty per cent. of his average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound."

_60 & 61 Victoria, chapter 37._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (May-October). Reassertion of suzerainty over the South African Republic. Refusal of arbitration.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1897 (MAY-OCTOBER); and 1898-1899.

{208}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (June). The "Diamond Jubilee" of Queen Victoria.

The sixtieth anniversary of the coronation of Queen Victoria was celebrated in London on the 20th of June, by religious services of great solemnity and impressiveness, and, two days later, by pageants of extraordinary pomp and magnificence, in which representatives of every people who acknowledge the queen's supremacy bore a part. Numerous functions and ceremonies followed, to many of which the aged sovereign was able to lend her presence. At the end of all, on the 15th of July, she addressed the following letter to the millions of her subjects throughout the world: "I have frequently expressed my personal feelings to my people, and though on this memorable occasion there have been many official expressions of my deep sense of the unbounded loyalty evinced I cannot rest satisfied without personally giving utterance to these sentiments. It is difficult for me on this occasion to say how truly touched and grateful I am for the spontaneous and universal outburst of loyal attachment and real affection which I have experienced on the completion of the sixtieth year of my reign. During my progress through London on the 22nd of June this great enthusiasm was shown in the most striking manner, and can never be effaced from my heart. It is indeed deeply gratifying, after so many years of labour and anxiety for the good of my beloved country, to find that my exertions have been appreciated throughout my vast empire. In weal and woe I have ever had the true sympathy of all my people, which has been warmly reciprocated by myself. It has given me unbounded pleasure to see so many of my subjects from all parts of the world assembled here, and to find them joining in the acclamations of loyal devotion to myself, and I would wish to thank them all from the depth of my grateful heart. I shall ever pray God to bless them and to enable me still to discharge my duties for their welfare as long as life lasts. VICTORIA, R. I."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (June-July). Conference of colonial premiers with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Discussion of important questions. Denunciation of commercial treaties with Germany and Belgium.

"On Thursday, the 24th of June, the Prime Ministers of Canada, New South Wales, Victoria, New Zealand, Queensland, Cape Colony, South Australia, Newfoundland, Tasmania, Western Australia, and Natal, assembled at the Colonial Office, Downing Street, for the discussion of certain Imperial questions with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was decided that the proceedings should be informal and that the general results only should be published. With the view of giving a definite direction to the discussion, the Secretary of State, in opening the proceedings, set forth the subjects which he considered might usefully be discussed, so as to secure an interchange of views upon them, and where they were ripe for a statement of opinion, a definite resolution in regard to them. [He did so in a speech of some length, after which the several questions brought forward in his remarks were discussed in succession at a series of meetings in the Colonial Office.] The commercial relations of the United Kingdom and the self-governing Colonies were first considered, and the following resolutions were unanimously adopted:

1. That the Premiers of the self-governing Colonies unanimously and earnestly recommend the denunciation, at the earliest convenient time, of any treaties which now hamper the commercial relations between Great Britain and her Colonies.

2. That in the hope of improving the trade relations between the mother country and the Colonies, the Premiers present undertake to confer with their colleagues with the view to seeing whether such a result can be properly secured by a preference given by the Colonies to the products of the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government have already [July 31, 1897] given effect to the first of these resolutions by formally notifying to the Governments concerned their wish to terminate the commercial treaties with Germany and Belgium, which alone of the existing commercial treaties of the United Kingdom are a bar to the establishment of preferential tariff relations between the mother country and the Colonies. From and after the 30th July 1898, therefore, there will be nothing in any of Her Majesty's treaty obligations to preclude any action which any of the Colonies may see fit to take in pursuance of the second resolution. It is, however, right to point out that if any Colony were to go farther and to grant preferential terms to any Foreign Country, the provisions of the most favoured nation clauses in many treaties between Her Majesty and other powers, in which the Colonies are included, would necessitate the concession of similar terms to those countries.

"On the question of the political relations between the mother country and the self-governing Colonies, the resolutions adopted were as follows:

1. The Prime Ministers here assembled are of opinion that the present political relations between the United Kingdom and the self-governing Colonies are generally satisfactory under the existing condition of things. Mr. Seddon and Sir E. N. C. Braddon dissented.

2. They are also of opinion that it is desirable, whenever and wherever practicable, to group together under a federal union those colonies which are geographically united. Carried unanimously.

3. Meanwhile, the Premiers are of opinion that it would be desirable to hold periodical conferences of representatives of the Colonies and Great Britain for the discussion of matters of common interest. Carried unanimously. Mr. Seddon and Sir E. N. C. Braddon dissented from the first resolution because they were of opinion that the time had already come when an effort should be made to render more formal the political ties between the United Kingdom and the Colonies. The majority of the Premiers were not yet prepared to adopt this position, but there was a strong feeling amongst some of them that with the rapid growth of population in the Colonies, the present relations could not continue indefinitely, and that some means would have to be devised for giving the Colonies a voice in the control and direction of those questions of Imperial interest in which they are concerned equally with the mother country. It was recognised at the same time that such a share in the direction of Imperial policy would involve a proportionate contribution in aid of Imperial expenditure, for which at present, at any rate, the Colonies generally are not prepared.

"On the question of Imperial defence, the various points raised in the speech of the Secretary of State were fully discussed;" but on this, and on some questions of minor importance, no conclusions were definitely formulated.

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications (Papers by Command, C.-8596, 1897)._

{209}

The following reference to the "denunciation" of the treaties appeared in the "London Statist" of August 7, 1897: "Last week the British Government gave notice to Germany and Belgium of its intention to terminate the commercial treaties with those countries at the end of July next year, at the same time expressing its willingness to conclude fresh treaties. This important step is a fitting sequel to the jubilee festivities. It is a graceful recognition of the great loyalty displayed by our colonies toward the mother country and prepares the way to that closer union which this paper has strongly advocated. In twelve months' time, therefore, we shall be free from our embarrassing engagements not to permit our colonies to place higher or other import duties on the produce of Germany and Belgium than upon the produce of the United Kingdom. Our colonies will thus have complete freedom to place what duties they choose on any produce they care to purchase from the United Kingdom or from any other country, and if they so desire they may place discriminating duties on their own exports. The action taken indicates no change in the policy of this country, and foreign nations need have no fear that British markets will be closed to their produce. It is quite possible that at some future time, when the colonies have much further developed their resources and the struggle for existence becomes still keener, we may be disposed to give a greater preference to colonial than to foreign produce, but that period has not yet come. Of course, the time may be greatly hastened by the attitude of foreign countries. The unfriendliness of Germany last year caused a wave of feeling in this country in favor of a duty upon German goods, and the Canadian offer of preferential duties to the mother country has created a responsive desire to assist Canadian trade. Should our other colonies follow the lead of Canada, which, from Mr. Chamberlain's statement, appears most likely, a strong movement might arise for giving them preferential treatment, especially if, at the same time, Germany, Belgium, or anyone else were disposed to raise their duties on British goods."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (July-October). Discussion with American envoys of a bi-metallic agreement.

See (in this volume) MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (August). Report on condition and prospects of West India colonies, and Parliamentary action.

See (in this volume) WEST INDIES, THE BRITISH: A. D. 1897.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897-1898. Campaigns on the Nile. Anglo-Egyptian conquest of the Sudan.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1897-1898.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897-1898. Insurrections and mutiny in Uganda.

See (in this volume) UGANDA: A. D. 1897-1898.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897-1898 (June-April). Wars on the Afghan frontier of India.

See (in this volume) INDIA: A. D. 1897-1898.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1897-1898 (July-January). The great strike and lock-out in the engineering trades.

See (in this volume) INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1897 (GREAT BRITAIN).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898. Alleged treaty with Portugal.

See (in this volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1898.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898. Results of British occupation of Egypt.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1898.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (February). British troops fighting in eight regions of the world.

"We are a people of peaceful traders—shopkeepers, our rivals of the Continent affirm—and are consequently at war on only eight points of the globe, with forces which in the aggregate only just exceed sixty thousand men. There are thirty-five thousand on the Indian Frontier fighting the clansmen of the Northern Himalayas, who, according to the Afridi sub-officers interrogated by Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, are all eager to enter our service; twenty-five thousand about to defeat the Khalifa at Omdurman; a thousand doing sentry duty in Crete; four hundred putting down an outbreak in Mekran; three hundred crushing a mutiny in Uganda; and some hundreds more restoring order in Lagos, Borneo, and Basutoland. All these troops, though of different nationalities—Englishmen, Sikhs, Ghoorkas, Rajpoots, Malays, Egyptians, Soudanese, Haussas, and Wagandas— are under British officers, are paid from funds under British control, and are engaged in the self-same work, that of solidifying the 'Pax Britannica,' so that a commercial civilisation may have a fair chance to grow."

_The Spectator (London), February 5, 1898._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (February). Resentment shown to China for rejection of a loan, through Russian influence. Chinese agreement not to alienate the Yang-tsze region and to open internal waters to steam navigation.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (February-May). Native revolt in the Sierra Leone Protectorate.

See (in this volume) SIERRA LEONE PROTECTORATE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (March-April). Unsuccessful opposition to Russian lease of Port Arthur and Talienwan from China. Compensatory British lease of Wei-hai Wei.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MARCH-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (April-August). Further exactions from China. Lease of territory opposite Hong Kong, etc.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (May). Death of Mr. Gladstone.

After a long and painful illness, the great statesman and leader of the Liberal party in England, William Ewart Gladstone, died on the 19th of May. His death drew tributes in Parliament from his political opponents which exalted him quite to the height of great distinction that those who followed him would claim. It was said by Lord Salisbury that "the most distinguished political name of the century had been withdrawn from the roll of Englishmen." Mr. Balfour described him as "the greatest member of the greatest deliberative assembly that the world had yet seen": and expressed the belief that "they would never again have in that assembly any man who could reproduce what Mr. Gladstone was to his contemporaries."

Lord Rosebery paid an eloquent tribute to the dead statesman. "This country." he said, "this nation, loves brave men. Mr. Gladstone was the bravest of the brave. There was no cause so hopeless that he was afraid to undertake it; there was no amount of opposition that would cowe him when once he had undertaken it. My lords, Mr. Gladstone always expressed a hope that there might be an interval left to him between the end of his political and of his natural life. That period was given to him, for it is more than four years since he quitted the sphere of politics. Those four years have been with him a special preparation for his death, but have they not also been a preparation for his death with the nation at large? {210} Had he died in the plenitude of his power as Prime Minister, would it have been possible for a vigorous and convinced Opposition to allow to pass to him, without a word of dissent, the honours which are now universally conceded? Hushed for the moment are the voices of criticism, hushed are the controversies in which he took part; hushed for the moment is the very sound of party faction. I venture to think that this is a notable fact in our history. It was not so with the elder Pitt. It was not so with the younger Pitt. It was not so with the elder Pitt, in spite of his tragic end, of his unrivalled services, and of his enfeebled old age. It was not so with the younger Pitt, in spite of his long control of the country and his absolute and absorbed devotion to the State. I think that we should remember this as creditable not merely to the man, but to the nation." With the consent of Mrs. Gladstone and family, a public funeral was voted by Parliament, and the remains of the great leader were laid, with simple but impressive ceremonies, in Westminster Abbey, on the 28th of May.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (June). The Sugar Conference at Brussels.

See (in this volume) SUGAR BOUNTIES.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (July). The Local Government Act for Ireland.

See (in this volume) IRELAND: A. D. 1898 (JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (July-December). In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (September-November).- The Nile question with France. Marchand's expedition at Fashoda.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (December). Imperial Penny Postage.

On Christmas Day, 1898, the Imperial penny postage came into operation,—i. e., it became possible to send for a penny a letter not above half an ounce in weight to all places in the British Empire, except the Australasian Colonies and the Cape. "Thousands of small orders and business transactions and millions of questions and answers will fly round the world at a penny which were too heavily weighted at two-pence halfpenny. The political effect of the fact that it will not now be necessary to think whether an address is outside the United Kingdom, but only whether it is inside the British Empire, will be by no means insignificant. If people will only let the Empire alone we shall ultimately weave out of many varied strands—some thick, some thin—a rope to join the Motherland and the Daughter States which none will be able to break. Not an unimportant thread in the hawser will be,—letters for a penny wherever the Union Jack is flown."

_The Spectator (London), December 31, 1898._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898-1899. Joint High Commission for settlement of pending questions between the United States and Canada.

See (in this volume) CANADA: A. D. 1898-1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1898-1899 (June-June). Convention with France defining West African and Sudan possessions.

See (in this volume) NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899. Dealings with anti-missionary demonstrations in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (January). Agreement with Egypt, establishing the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium in the Sudan.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (March-April). Agreement with Russia concerning railway interests in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1899 (MARCH-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (May-June). The Bloemfontein Conference with President Kruger.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1899 (MAY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (May-July). Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (June-October). Arbitration and settlement of the Venezuela boundary question.

See (in this volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (July). Passage of the London Government Act.

See (in this volume) LONDON: A. D. 1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (July-September). Discussion of proposed amendments to the Franchise Law of the South African Republic.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1899 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (August). The Board of Education Act.

An Act of Parliament which became law on the 9th of August, 1899, and operative on the 1st of April, 1900, created a national Board of Education, "charged with the superintendence of matters relating to education in England and Wales," and taking the place of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education, by which that function had previously been performed. The Act provided that the Board "shall consist of a President, and of the Lord President of the Council (unless he is appointed President of the Board), Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, and the Chancellor of Her Majesty's Exchequer. … The President of the Board shall be appointed by Her Majesty, and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure." The Act provided further for the creation by Her Majesty in Council of "a Consultative Committee consisting, as to not less than two-thirds, of persons qualified to represent the views of Universities and other bodies interested in education, for the purpose of—(a) framing, with the approval of the Board of Education, regulations for a register of teachers, … with an entry in respect to each teacher showing the date of his registration, and giving a brief record of his qualifications and experience; and (b) advising the Board of Education on any matter referred to the committee by the Board."

_62 & 63 Victoria, chapter 33._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (August). Instructions to the Governor of Jamaica.

See (in this volume) JAMAICA: A. D. 1899.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (September-October). Preparations for war in South Africa. The Boer Ultimatum.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE FREE STATE): A. D. 1899 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (October-November). Opening circumstances of the war in South Africa. Want of preparation.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (November). Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial policy in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).

{211}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899 (November). Withdrawal from the Samoan Islands, with compensations in the Tonga and Solomon Islands and in Africa.

See (in this volume) SAMOAN ISLANDS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1900. Renewed investigation of the Old-Age Pension question.

On the initiative of the government, a fresh investigation of the question of old-age pensions was opened in 1899 by a select committee of the House of Commons, under the chairmanship of Mr. Chaplin. The report of the Committee, made in the following year, suggested the following plan: Any person, aged 65, whether man or woman, who satisfied the pension authority that he or she"

(1) Is a British subject;

(2) Is 65 years of age;

(3) Has not within the last 20 years been convicted of an offence and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment without the option of a fine;

(4) Has not received poor relief, other than medical relief, unless under circumstances of a wholly exceptional character, during twenty years prior to the application for a pension;

(5) Is resident within the district of the pension authority;

(6) Has not an income from any source of more than 10s. a week; and

(7) Has endeavoured to the best of his ability, by his industry or by the exercise of reasonable providence, to make provision for himself and those immediately dependent on him—"should receive a certificate to that effect and be entitled to a pension. The amount of pension to be from 5s. to 7s. a week.

As a means of ascertaining approximately the number of persons in the United Kingdom who would be pensionable under this scheme, a test census was taken in certain districts made as representative as possible by the inclusion of various kinds of population. In each of the selected areas in Great Britain a house-to-house visitation was made with a view of ascertaining how many of the aged would satisfy the conditions of the scheme. In Ireland a similar census had to be abandoned as impracticable because "the officials, although they proceeded courteously, were received with abuse"; but the Poor Law inspectors framed some rough estimates after consultation with local authorities. Altogether the inquiry in Great Britain extended to a population of rather over half a million persons. From facts thus obtained the following estimate of the cost of the proposed pensioning project was deduced:

Estimated number of persons over 65 years of age in 1901 2,016,000 Deduct: 1. For those whose incomes exceed 10s. a week 741,000 2. For paupers 515,000 3. For aliens, criminals, and lunatics 32,000 4. For inability to comply with thrift test 72,700

Total deductions 1,360,700

Estimated number of pensionable persons 655,000

Estimated cost (the average pension being taken at 6s. a week) £9,976,000 Add administrative expenses (3 per cent.) £299,000

Total estimated cost. £10,275,000

In round figures. £10,300,000

The Committee estimated, still further, that the cost would rise to £15,650,000 by 1921. No legislative action was taken on the report.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1900 (October-January). Troops from Canada for the South African War.

See (in this volume) CANADA: A. D. 1899-1900.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1899-1901. The Newfoundland French Shore question.

See (in this volume) NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900. Industrial combinations.

See (in this volume) TRUSTS: IN ENGLAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900. Naval strength.

See (in this volume) NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (January-March). The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (February). Compulsory education.

A bill introduced in Parliament by a private member, unsupported by the government, providing that the earliest date at which a child should be permitted to leave school should be raised from 11 to 12 years, was passed, only one member of the Cabinet voting for it.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (February). Negotiation of a convention with the United States relative to the projected Interoceanic Canal.

See (in this volume) CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (March). Overtures of peace from the Boer Presidents. Reply of Lord Salisbury.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1900 (MARCH).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (May). Annexation of Orange Free State by right of conquest.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE): A. D. 1900 (MAY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (June-December). Co-operation with the Powers in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (July). Passage of the "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act," federating the Australian Colonies.

See (in this volume) AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1900; and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (September). Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia.

See (in this volume) AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1900 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (September-October). Dissolution of Parliament. Election of a new Parliament. Victory for the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists.

By royal proclamation, September 17, the existing Parliament was dissolved and order given for the issue of writs calling a new Parliament, the elections for which were held in October, concluding on the 24th of that month. The state of parties in the House of Commons resulting from the election was as follows: Conservatives, 334, Liberal Unionists, 68; total supporters of the Unionist Ministry, 402. Liberals and Labor members, 186, Nationalists (Irish), 82; total opposition, 268. Unionist majority, 134, against 128 in the preceding Parliament. The issues in the election were those growing out of the South African War. Although most of the Liberals upheld the war, and the annexation of the South African republics, they sharply criticised the prior dealings of the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, with the Transvaal Boers, and the general conduct of the war. A number of the leading Liberals were uncompromising in condemnation of the war, of the policy which caused it, and of the proposed extinction of Boer independence. The sentiment of the country was shown by the election to be strongly against all questioning of the righteousness of the war or of the use to be made of victory in it.

{212}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (October). Anglo-German agreement concerning policy in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (October). Annexation of the Transvaal.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (November-December). The Fourth Ministry of Lord Salisbury. Brief session of Parliament.

For the fourth time, Lord Salisbury was called to the lead in government, and formed his Ministry anew, making considerable changes. He relieved himself of the conduct of Foreign Affairs (which was transferred to the Marquis of Lansdowne), and took, with the office of Prime Minister, that of Lord Privy Seal. Mr. Brodrick, who had been an Under Secretary, succeeded Lord Lansdowne as Secretary of State for War. Mr. Balfour continued to be First Lord of the Treasury, and Leader of the House; Mr. Chamberlain remained in the Colonial Office. Mr. Goschen retired.

Parliament met on the 6th of December, for the purpose set forth in a remarkably brief "Queen's Speech," as follows: "My Lords, and Gentlemen, It has become necessary to make further provision for the expenses incurred by the operations of my armies in South Africa and China. I have summoned you to hold a Special Session in order that you may give your sanction to the enactments required for this purpose. I will not enter upon other public matters requiring your attention until the ordinary meeting of Parliament in the spring." The estimates of the War Office called for £16,000,000, and it was voted after a few days of debate, in which the causes and conduct of the war were criticised and defended by the two parties, and, on the 15th, Parliament was prorogued to the 14th of February, 1901, by the Queen's command.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (December). Fall of stones at Stonehenge.

See (in this volume) STONEHENGE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1900 (December). Parliamentary statements of the number of men employed in the South African War, and the number dead and disabled.

In the House of Commons, December 11, Mr. Brodrick, Secretary of State for War, moved a vote of £16,000,000, required for the current year, to meet additional expenditure in South Africa and China. In the course of his remarks, explanatory of the need for this supplementary supply, he made the following statement: "When the war broke out we had in South Africa in round figures 10,000 men, all Regular troops. We have in the 14 months' which have since elapsed sent from this country and landed in South Africa 175,000 Regular soldiers, a number which exceeds by far any number which any Minister from this bench or any gentleman sitting behind these benches or in front of them ever suggested that this country ought to be in a position to ship to any part of the world, and a number far in excess of that which during any period that I have sat in the house any member of the House, except an official, would have been willing to believe that the War Office could find to dispose of. But they are not the only troops. We have called on them, I will not say to the extreme limit of our power, but, at all events, with an unsparing hand. But you have in addition, as this return will show, some 40,000 Volunteers of various descriptions from the United Kingdom—40,000 including the Imperial Yeomanry, whose service is spoken of by every officer under whom they have served with such satisfaction; 30 Militia regiments, who are also Volunteers, since their term of service was only for the United Kingdom and who have gone abroad at great personal sacrifice to themselves; and the volunteer companies who have joined the Regular battalions. You have also got 40,000 colonial troops, to a large extent, no doubt, men raised in the colonies affected, and as everybody knows to a still larger extent consisting of men who have gone for a year from Australia, Canada, and other places."

Sir William Harcourt replied to Mr. Brodrick, not in opposition to the motion, but in criticism of the conduct of the war. Referring to a return submitted by the War Office, he analyzed its showing of facts, thus: "Now just let us look at this table. By some accident it only gives the rank and file and non-commissioned officers. It is a very terrible return, and I think it is worthy of the attention of the men who delight in war, of whom, I am afraid, there are unhappily not a few. I have made a short analysis of the paper. It shows that the garrison at the Cape before the war was 9,600. Reinforcements of 6,300 men were sent out in October last year and from India 5,600, which with the former garrison made up 21,000 in all when the war broke out. Up to August, that is, after the last estimate for 1900, according to this table 267,000 men had been in arms in South Africa—that is without the officers. Therefore I will call it 270,000 men in round numbers. I think the right honourable gentleman made a mistake when he said that the colonial troops were more numerous from beyond the seas than they were in the Cape. This return shows that the men raised in South Africa were 30,000, and, apart from them, the colonials from beyond the seas were 11,000. According to the last return there were 210,000 men in South Africa. You will observe there is a balance of some 60,000 or 70,000 men. What has become of those men? You would find from this return, one would suppose, that a good many of these have returned safe and sound to England. No, Sir; the men who have returned to England according to this paper, not invalids, are 7,500 and to the colonies 3,000 more. That makes 10,000 men, or with the officers about 11,000 men. But since July you have sent out 13,000 men to South Africa, more, in fact, than you have been bringing home, and yet you have only 210,000 men there. Now, Sir, how is this accounted for? First of all you have the heading, 'killed or died of wounds,' 11,000 men. You have 'wounded,' 13,000, you have 'in hospital in South Africa,' 12,000, and you have 'returned to England, sick, wounded, or died on passage,' 36,000 men. That is the balance. Seventy thousand men have been killed, wounded, or disabled, or have died in this war. And now what is the prospect that is held before us with this force, once 270,000 men, and now 210,000, in South Africa? Lord Roberts has declared that the war is over, yet you hold out to us no prospect of diminishing the force you have in South Africa of 210,000 men."

{213}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (January). Death of Queen Victoria.

The following notice, which appeared in the "Court Circular," on the 18th of January, dated from the winter residence of the Queen at Osborne House, in the Isle of Wight, seems to have been the first intimation to the country of its sovereign's failing health: "The Queen has not lately been in her usual health and is unable for the present to take her customary drives. The Queen during the past year has had a great strain upon her powers, which has rather told upon her Majesty's nervous system. It has, therefore, been thought advisable by her Majesty's physicians that the Queen should be kept perfectly quiet in the house and should abstain for the present from transacting business." It was subsequently found, as stated in an "authoritative account" by the "British Medical Journal," and the "Lancet," that "the Queen's health for the past 12 months had been failing, with symptoms mainly of a dyspeptic kind, accompanied by impaired general nutrition, periods of insomnia, and later by occasional slight and transitory attacks of aphasia, the latter suggesting that the cerebral vessels had become damaged, although her Majesty's general arterial system showed remarkably few signs of age. … The dyspepsia which tended to lower her Majesty's original robust constitution was especially marked during her last visit to Balmoral. It was there that the Queen first manifested distinct symptoms of brain fatigue and lost notably in weight. These symptoms continued at Windsor, where in November and December, 1900, slight aphasic symptoms were first observed, always of an ephemeral kind, and unattended by any motor paralysis. … A few days before the final illness transient but recurring symptoms of apathy and somnolence, with aphasic indications and increasing feebleness, gave great uneasiness to her physician." Before the publication of the cautious announcement quoted above, the symptoms had become too grave to leave any doubt as to the near approach of death. It came on Tuesday, the 22d of January, at half past six o'clock in the evening, the dying Queen being then surrounded by a large number of her many children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, whom she recognized, it is said, within a few moments of the end. The eldest of the Queen's children, the Empress Frederick, was kept from her mother's side a this last hour by serious illness of her own; but the Emperor William, of Germany (son of the Empress Frederick and eldest grandson of Queen Victoria) had hastened to the scene and showed a filial affection which touched English hearts.

On Friday, the first day of February, the remains of the Queen were borne from the island where she died to Portsmouth, between long lines of battle-ships and cruisers—British, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Belgian and Portuguese. The scene of the funeral voyage was impressively described by a correspondent of the New York "Sun," as follows: "Nature was never kindlier. The smiling waters of the Solent were as calm as on a summer's morning. It was 'Queen's weather' to the very last. The cavalcade which wended slowly through the narrow lane, green even in midwinter, down through the streets of the little town of Cowes to the Trinity pier was a funeral procession such as the world had never seen before. Kings and princes, a Queen and princesses, walked humbly between black lines of mourning islanders, escorting the coffin of the dead sovereign. Then followed a sight far more notable and more impressive, indeed, than the great tribute the great capital of the empire will pay to-morrow. It was the transit of the funeral yacht across the waters between lines of steel which are England's bulwarks against the world. Battleship after battleship thundered its grief, band after band wailed its dirge and crew after crew bowed low their heads as the pigmy yacht swept past, bearing no passengers save an admiral on the bridge and four red-coated guards at the corners of the simple, glowing white bier resting amidships. It was a picture neither a painter's brush nor an orator's eloquence could reproduce. … The boat slowly glided on in the mellow light of the afternoon sun, herself almost golden in hue, sharply contrasting with the black warships. The ears also were assailed in strange contrast, the sad strains of Beethoven's funeral march floating over the water being punctuated by the roar of minute guns from each ship. Somehow it was not incongruous and one felt that it was all a great and majestic tribute to a reign which was an era and to a sovereign to whom the world pays its highest honors."

On the following day the remains were conveyed by railway from Portsmouth to London, carried in solemn procession through the streets of the capital, and thence by railway to Windsor, where the last rites were performed on Monday, the 4th. The Queen was then laid to rest, by the side of her husband, in the mausoleum which she had built at Frogmore.

Of the sincerity with which Queen Victoria had been loved by her own people and respected and admired by the world at large, and of the genuineness of sorrow that was manifested everywhere at her death, there can be no doubt. To the impressiveness of the ending of an unexampled period of history there was added a true sense of loss, from the disappearance of a greatly important personage, whose high example had been pure and whose large influence had been good.

Among all the tributes to the Queen that were called out by her death none seem so significant and so fully drawn from knowledge of what she was in her regal character, as the words that were spoken by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, at the meeting of Parliament on the Friday following her death. "My lords." he said, "the late Queen had so many titles to our admiration that it would occupy an enormous time to glance at them even perfunctorily; but that on which I think your lordships should most reflect, and which will chiefly attach to her character in history, is that, being a constitutional monarch with restricted powers, she reigned by sheer force of character, by the lovableness of her disposition, over the hearts of her subjects, and exercised an influence in moulding their character and destiny which she could not have done more if she had bad the most despotic power. She has been a great instance of government by example, by esteem, by love; and it will never be forgotten how much she has done for the elevation of her people, not by the exercise of any prerogative, not by the giving of any commands, but by the simple recognition and contemplation of the brilliant qualities which she has exhibited in her exalted position. My lords, it may be, perhaps, proper that those who, like noble lords opposite and myself, have had the opportunity of seeing the close workings of her character in the discharge of her duties as Sovereign, should take this opportunity of testifying to the great admiration she inspired and the great force which her distinguishing characteristics exercised over all who came near her. {214} The position of a Constitutional Sovereign is not an easy one. Duties have to be reconciled which sometimes seem far apart. Much has to be accepted which it may not be always pleasant to accept; but she showed a wonderful power, on the one hand, of observing with the most absolute strictness, the limits of her action which the Constitution draws, and, on the other hand, of maintaining a steady and persistent influence on the action of her Ministers in the course of legislation and government which no one could mistake. She was able to accept some things of which, perhaps, she did not entirely approve, but which she thought it her duty in her position to accept.

"She always maintained and practised a rigorous supervision over public affairs, giving to her Ministers her frank advice and warning them of danger if she saw there was danger ahead; and she certainly impressed many of us with a profound sense of the penetration, almost intuition, with which she saw the perils with which we might be threatened in any course it was thought expedient to adopt. She left upon my mind, she left upon our minds, the conviction that it was always a dangerous matter to press on her any course of the expediency of which she was not thoroughly convinced; and I may say with confidence that no Minister in her long reign ever disregarded her advice, or pressed her to disregard it, without afterwards feeling that he had incurred a dangerous responsibility. She had an extraordinary knowledge of what her people would think. I have said for years that I always thought that when I knew what the Queen thought I knew certainly what view her subjects would take, and especially the middle classes of her subjects. Such was the extraordinary penetration of her mind. Yet she never adhered to her own conceptions obstinately. On the contrary, she was full of concession and consideration; and she spared no effort—I might almost say she shrank from no sacrifice—to make the task of conducting this difficult Government more easy to her advisers than it would otherwise have been. My lords, I feel sure that the testimony I have borne will be abundantly sustained by all those who have been called to serve her.

"We owe her gratitude in every direction—for her influence in elevating the people, for her power with foreign Courts and Sovereigns to remove difficulties and misapprehension which sometimes might have been dangerous; but, above all things, I think, we owe her gratitude for this, that by a happy dispensation her reign has coincided with that great change which has come over the political structure of this country and the political instincts of its people. She has bridged over that great interval which separates old England from new England. Other nations may have had to pass through similar trials, but have seldom passed through them so peaceably, so easily, and with so much prosperity and success as we have. I think that future historians will look to the Queen's reign as the boundary which separates the two states of England—England which has changed so much—and recognize that we have undergone the change with constant increase of public prosperity, without any friction to endanger the peace or stability of our civil life, and at the same time with a constant expansion of an Empire which every year grows more and more powerful. We owe all these blessings to the tact, the wisdom, the passionate patriotism, and the incomparable judgment of the Sovereign whom we deplore." [sic]

In the House of Commons, on the same day, Mr. Balfour, the leader of the House, spoke with fine feeling, partly as follows: "The reign of Queen Victoria is no mere chronological landmark. It is no mere convenient division of time, useful for the historian or the chronicler. No, Sir, we feel as we do feel for our great loss because we intimately associate the personality of Queen Victoria with the great succession of events which have filled her reign and with the development of the Empire over which she ruled. And, associating her personality with those events, surely we do well. In my judgment, the importance of the Crown in our Constitution is not a diminishing, but an increasing, factor. It is increasing, and must increase, with the growth and development of those free, self-governing communities, those new commonwealths beyond the sea, who are bound to us by the person of the Sovereign, who is the living symbol of the unity of the Empire. But, Sir, it is not given, it cannot, in ordinary course, be given, to a Constitutional Monarch to signalize his reign by any great isolated action. The effect of a Constitutional Sovereign, great as it is, is produced by the slow, constant, and cumulative results of a great ideal and a great example; and of that great ideal and that great example Queen Victoria surely was the first of all Constitutional Monarchs whom the world has yet seen. Where shall we find that ideal so lofty in itself, so constantly and consistently maintained, through two generations, through more than two generations, of her subjects, through many generations of her public men and members of this House?

[Image: Descendants of Queen Victoria.]

"Sir, it would be almost impertinent for me were I to attempt to express to the House in words the effect which the character of our late Sovereign produced upon all who were in any degree, however remote, brought in contact with her. The simple dignity, befitting a Monarch of this realm, in that she could never fail, because it arose from her inherent sense of the fitness of things. It was no trapping put on for office, and therefore it was that this dignity, this Queenly dignity, only served to throw into stronger relief and into a brighter light those admirable virtues of the wife, the mother, and the woman with which she was so richly endowed. Those kindly graces, those admirable qualities, have endeared her to every class in the community, and are known to all. Perhaps less known was the life of continuous labour which her position as Queen threw upon her. Short as was the interval between the last trembling signature affixed to a public document and final rest, it was yet long enough to clog and hamper the wheels of administration; and I remember when I saw a vast mass of untouched documents which awaited the hand of the Sovereign of this country to deal with it was brought vividly before my mind how admirable was the unostentatious patience with which for 63 years, through sorrow, through suffering, in moments of weariness, in moments of despondency, it may be, she carried on without intermission her share in the government of this great Empire. {216} For her there was no holiday, to her there was no intermission of toil. Domestic sorrow, domestic sickness, made no difference in her labours, and they were continued from the hour at which she became our Sovereign to within a very few days of her death. It is easy to chronicle the growth of Empire, the progress of trade, the triumphs of war, all the events that make history interesting or exciting; but who is there that will dare to weigh in the balance the effect which such an example continued over 63 years has produced on the highest life of the people? It is a great life, and had a fortunate, and, let me say, in my judgment, a happy ending."

The especial and peculiar importance which Queen Victoria had acquired in the political world, and the weight in its councils which England owed to her personality, were impressively suggested by Lord Rosebery, in a speech which he made at a special court of the Governors of the Corporation of the Royal Scottish Hospital, when he said: "We hear much in these days of the life of the Queen and of what we owe her. But I sometimes wonder if we all realize how much we do owe her, for you would have had to know much about the Queen to realize adequately the debt which the nation was under to her. Probably every subject in Great Britain realizes that he has lost his greatest and his best friend. But they do not understand of what enormous weight in the councils of the world we are deprived by the death of our late Sovereign. She gave to the councils of Great Britain an advantage which no talents, no brilliancy, no genius, could supply. Think of what her reign was! She had reigned for 63 years. For 63 years she had known all that was to be known about the political condition of her country. For 63 years she had been in communication with every important Minister and with every important public man. She had received reports, daily reports almost, from her successive Ministers, or their deputies in the House of Commons. She had, therefore, a fund of knowledge which no constitutional historian has ever had at his command. That by the stroke of death is lost to us to-day. All that was of incalculable advantage to our Monarchy. But have you realized what the personal weight of the late Queen was in the councils of the world? She was by far the senior of all the European Sovereigns. She was, it is no disparagement to other Kings to say, the chief of all the European Sovereigns. The German Emperor was her grandson by birth. The Emperor of Russia was her grandson by marriage. She had reigned 11 years when the Emperor of Austria came to his throne. She had seen two dynasties pass from the throne of France. She had seen, as Queen, three Monarchs of Spain, and four Sovereigns of the House of Savoy in Italy. In all those kingdoms which have been carved out of the Turkish Empire she had seen the foundation of their reigning dynasties. Can we not realize, then, what a force the personal influence of such a Sovereign was in the troubled councils of Europe? And when, as we know, that influence was always given for peace, for freedom, and for good government, we feel that not merely ourselves but all the world has lost one of its best friends."

A statement in the "London Times" of January 26 shows the descendants of Queen Victoria to be in number as follows: "The Queen has had

9 children of whom 6 survive 40 grandchildren of whom 31 survive 37 great-grandchildren of whom 37 survive

[A total of] 86 [of whom] 74 [survive].

"Of the great-grandchildren 22 are boys and 15 are girls; 6 are grandchildren of the Prince of Wales; 18 are grandchildren of the Empress Frederick; 11 are grandchildren of the late Princess Alice; 6 are grandchildren of the late Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. This would appear to make a total of 41, but three of them are grandchildren of both the Empress Frederick and Princess Alice, while one is grandchild of both the Princess Alice and the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

"It will be seen that in the course of nature the future rulers of Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Greece, and Rumania will be descendants of her Majesty."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (January-February). Ceremonies of the accession of King Edward VII. His speech in Council and his messages to the people of the British Empire.

On Wednesday, the 23d of January—the day following the death of the Queen—her eldest son, Albert Edward, long known as Prince of Wales, went from Osborne to London to take up the sceptre of sovereignty which his mother had laid down. The proceedings in Council which took place thereupon were officially reported in the "London Gazette" as follows:

"At the Court at Saint James's, the 23rd day of January, 1901. Present,

"The King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. His Majesty being this day present in Council was pleased to make the following Declaration:

"'Your Royal Highnesses, My Lords, and Gentlemen, This is the most painful occasion on which I shall ever be called upon to address you. My first and melancholy duty is to announce to you the death of My beloved Mother the Queen, and I know how deeply you, the whole Nation, and I think I may say the whole world, sympathize with Me in the irreparable loss we have all sustained. I need hardly say that My constant endeavour will be always to walk in Her footsteps. In undertaking the heavy load which now devolves upon life, I am fully determined to be a Constitutional Sovereign in the strictest sense of the word, and as long as there is breath in My body to work for the good and amelioration of My people.

"'I have resolved to be known by the name of Edward, which has been borne by six of My ancestors. In doing so I do not undervalue the name of Albert, which I inherit from My ever to be lamented, great and wise Father, who by universal consent is I think deservedly known by the name of Albert the Good, and I desire that his name should stand alone.

"'In conclusion, I trust to Parliament and the Nation to support Me in the arduous duties which now devolve upon Me by inheritance, and to which I am determined to devote My whole strength during the remainder of My life.'

"Whereupon the Lords of the Council made it their humble request to His Majesty that His Majesty's Most Gracious Declaration to their Lordships' might be made public, which His Majesty was pleased to Order accordingly."

{217}

The King then "caused all the Lords and others of the late Queen's Privy Council, who were then present, to be sworn of His Majesty's Privy Council." Orders had been previously given for proclaiming "His present Majesty," in the following form: "Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy Our late Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, of Blessed and Glorious Memory, by whose Decease the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Prince Albert Edward: We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these of Her late Majesty's Privy Council, with Numbers of other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, do now hereby, with one Voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart, publish and proclaim, That the High and Mighty Prince, Albert Edward, is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of Happy Memory, become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord Edward the Seventh, by the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India: To whom we do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience, with all hearty and humble Affection; beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Prince Edward the Seventh, with long and happy Years to reign over Us."

The proclamation was made in London, with antique and picturesque ceremony on the succeeding day, January 24, and the following official report of it, from "Earl Marshal's Office," published in the "London Gazette":

"This day His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII. was, in pursuance of an Order in Council of the 23rd instant, proclaimed with the usual ceremonies. At 9 o'clock in the forenoon, the Officers of Arms habited in their tabards, the Serjeants-at-Arms, with their maces and collars; and Deputy-Serjeant Trumpeter in his collar; the Trumpeters, Drum Major, and Knight Marshalmen being assembled at St James's Palace, the Proclamation was read in the Grand Court by William H. Weldon, Esq., Norroy King of Arms, Deputy to Sir Albert W. Woods, Garter Principal King of Arms, in the presence of the Earl Marshal of England, the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, and many other Members of Her late Majesty's Household, with Lords and others of the Privy Council and several personages of distinction. Deputy Garter read the Proclamation. Then the Officers of Arms having entered Royal Carriages, a procession was formed in the following order:

The High Bailiff of Westminster, in his carriage. Horse Guards. Trumpeters. A Royal Carriage containing The four Serjeants-at-Arms, bearing their maces. A Royal Carriage containing Pursuivants. Rouge Dragon: Everard Green. Bluemantle: G. Ambrose Lee. Rouge Croix: G. W. Marshall. Heralds. Windsor: W. A. Lindsay, Esq. York: A. S. Scott-Gatty, Esq. Somerset: H. Farnham Burke, Esq., in a Royal Carriage. A Detachment of Horse Guards.

"The Procession, flanked by the Horse Guards, moved from St. James's Palace to Temple Bar, and Rouge Dragon Pursuivant of Arms, alighting from the carriage, advanced between two trumpeters, preceded by two of the Horse Guards, to the barrier, and after the trumpets had sounded thrice, demanded in the usual form admission into the City to proclaim His Royal Majesty King Edward VII.; and being admitted, and the barrier again closed, Rouge Dragon was conducted by the City Marshal and his Officers to the Lord Mayor, who was in attendance in his State Carriage, when Rouge Dragon delivered to his Lordship the Order in Council, which the Lord Mayor, having read, returned, and directed the barrier to be opened; and Rouge Dragon being reconducted to his place in the Procession it then moved into the City; the High Bailiff of Westminster filing off at Temple Bar.

"At the corner of Chancery-lane York Herald read the Proclamation; then the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, Recorder, Sheriffs, Chamberlain, Common Serjeant, Town Clerk, and City Officers fell into the procession immediately after the Officers of Arms, and the procession moved on to the Royal Exchange, where it was lastly read by Somerset Herald, when the guns in St. James's Park and at the Tower of London were fired. A multitude of spectators filled the streets through which the procession passed, the windows of which were crowded; and the acclamations were loud and general."

As described more fully by the "London Times," the interesting proceeding, according to ancient custom, at Temple Bar—the site of the old city gate—was as follows: "Temple Bar has passed away, but not so the privileges associated with it, although they have ceased to have more than an historical, ceremonial, and picturesque interest. In accordance, therefore, with ancient custom, the Lord Mayor yesterday proceeded in State to the site of Temple Bar to grant entrance to the King's Officer of Arms, who was about to proclaim his Majesty King within the City. The gates of Temple Bar were formerly closed for a short time before this ceremony, to be opened, upon demand of the Officer of Arms, by the direction of the Lord Mayor. As there are now no gates, a barrier was made for the occasion by the holding of a red silken rope across the street on either side of the Griffin which commemorates the spot upon which Temple Bar formerly stood. A strong force of burly constables was entrusted with this duty, and the barrier thus created answered every practical purpose, although there must have been lingering in the minds of some of the venerable City Fathers some little regret that stern necessity had occasioned the removal of the historic landmark which stood there when Queen Victoria was proclaimed and remained for many a long year afterwards, one of the most interesting features of the ancient City.

{218}

"The Pursuivant (Rouge Dragon), the heralds, the officials of Westminster, and the cavalcade halted a short distance to the west of the barrier, and the Pursuivant then advanced between two trumpeters, and the trumpets sounded thrice. Upon this the City Marshal, on horseback, in scarlet tunic and cocked hat with plumes, advanced to the barrier to meet the Pursuivant, and in a loud voice, which could be heard by those at a considerable distance, asked, 'Who comes there?' The Pursuivant replied, 'The Officer of Arms, who demands entrance into the City to proclaim his Royal Majesty, Edward the Seventh.' Thereupon the barrier was opened so as to admit the Pursuivant without escort, and immediately closed again. The Pursuivant was then conducted by the City Marshal to the Lord Mayor, who, being made acquainted with the object of the Pursuivant's visit, directed the opening of the barrier, and the Pursuivant returned to his cavalcade. There was a fanfare of trumpets, and York Herald, Mr. A. S. Scott-Gatty, between two trumpeters, approached the Lord Mayor, and presented to his lordship the Order in Council requiring him to proclaim his Majesty. The Lord Mayor replied:

'I am aware of the contents of this paper, having been apprised yesterday of the ceremony appointed to take place, and I have attended to perform my duty in accordance with ancient usages and customs of the City of London.'

"The Lord Mayor then read aloud the Order in Council requiring the herald to proclaim his Majesty within the jurisdiction of the City, and returned it to the herald. … The trumpets sounded and, the officials of Westminster having filed off, the cavalcade advanced into the City as far as the corner of Chancery-lane. There was another fanfare of trumpets, and the herald then made the proclamation, reading it with admirable clearness. When it was over the spectators, who had listened with bared heads, cried 'God Save the King.' The trumpets were again sounded, and a military band stationed to the west of Temple Bar played the National Anthem. This was followed by cheering, which lasted while the Lord Mayor and his retinue resumed their places in the carriages which had brought them, and the procession made its way to the Royal Exchange, the route being down Fleet-street, up Ludgate-hill, through St. Paul's Churchyard, and along Cheapside.

"Thus ended a ceremony which impressed all who saw it by its solemnity, its dignity, and its significance. It brought home vividly to the mind of every spectator the continuity which exists amid all the changes of our national life, and the very strangeness of the quaint heraldic garb worn by the heralds and pursuivants, which at another time might have provoked a smile, was felt to be an object-lesson for all, telling of unbroken tradition reaching far back into the glorious history of our country. On turning away from the site of Temple Bar after the Proclamation had been made and the procession had disappeared, one felt that the seriousness of the occasion had impressed itself on every mind and that from every heart there rose a common prayer—God Save the King!"

With somewhat less ceremony, on the same day, the same proclamation was read in many parts of the United Kingdom.

On Friday, the 25th, both Houses of Parliament met (the members having, one by one, taken the oath of allegiance to the new sovereign on the two preceding days) to receive a message from the King and to adopt an address in reply. The royal message was as follows: "The King is fully assured that the House of Commons will share in the deep sorrow which has befallen his Majesty and the nation by the lamented death of his Majesty's mother, the late Queen. Her devotion to the welfare of her country and her people and her wise and beneficent rule during the sixty-four years of her glorious reign will ever be held in affectionate remembrance by her loyal and devoted subjects throughout the dominions of the British Empire."

The Marquis of Salisbury, in the House of Lords, and Mr. Balfour, in the House of Commons, moved the following Address, in speeches from which some passages have been quoted above:

"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty to assure his Majesty that this House deeply sympathizes in the great sorrow which his Majesty has sustained by the death of our beloved Sovereign, the late Queen, whose unfailing devotion to the duties of her high estate and to the welfare of her people will ever cause her reign to be remembered with reverence and affection; to submit to his Majesty our respectful congratulations on his accession to the Throne; to assure his Majesty of our loyal attachment to his person; and, further, to assure him of our earnest conviction that his reign will be distinguished under the blessing of Providence by an anxious desire to maintain the laws of the kingdom and to promote the happiness, the welfare, and the liberty of his subjects."

Speeches in support of the motion were made by the leaders of the Opposition party, the Earl of Kimberley, in the House of Lords, and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, in the House of Commons, and by the Archbishop of Canterbury, also, in the former chamber. The Address was then adopted, and Parliament was adjourned until February 14. On the 4th of February, the new King addressed the following messages to his subjects in the British Empire at large, to the Colonies, and to the princes and people of India:

"To My People. Now that the last Scene has closed in the noble and ever glorious life of My beloved Mother, The Queen, I am anxious to endeavour to convey to the whole Empire the extent of the deep gratitude I feel for the heart-stirring and affectionate tributes which are everywhere borne to Her Memory. I wish also to express My warm recognition of those universal expressions of what I know to be genuine and loyal sympathy with Me and with the Royal Family in our overwhelming sorrow. Such expressions have reached Me from all parts of My vast Empire, while at home the sorrowful, reverent and sincere enthusiasm manifested in the magnificent display by sea and land has deeply touched Me. The consciousness of this generous spirit of devotion and loyalty among the millions of My Subjects and of the feeling that we are all sharing a common sorrow, has inspired Me with courage and hope during the past most trying and momentous days. Encouraged by the confidence of that love and trust which the nation ever reposed in its late and fondly mourned Sovereign, I shall earnestly strive to walk in Her Footsteps, devoting Myself to the utmost of My powers to maintaining and promoting the highest interests of My People, and to the diligent and zealous fulfilment of the great and sacred responsibilities which, through the Will of God, I am now called to undertake. EDWARD, R. I."

{219}

"To My People Beyond the Seas. The countless messages of loyal sympathy which I have received from every part of My Dominions over the Seas testify to the universal grief in which the whole Empire now mourns the loss of My Beloved Mother. In the welfare and prosperity of Her subjects throughout Greater Britain the Queen ever evinced a heartfelt, interest. She saw with thankfulness the steady progress which, under a wide extension of Self-Government, they had made during Her Reign. She warmly appreciated their unfailing loyalty to Her Throne and Person, and was proud to think of those who had so nobly fought and died for the Empire's cause in South Africa. I have already declared that it will be My constant endeavour to follow the great example which has been bequeathed to Me. In these endeavours I shall have a confident trust in the devotion and sympathy of the People and of their several Representative Assemblies throughout My vast Colonial Dominions. With such loyal support I will, with God's blessing, solemnly work for the promotion of the common welfare and security of the great Empire over which I have now been called to reign, EDWARD, R. I."

"To the Princes and People of India. Through the lamented death of My beloved and dearly mourned Mother, I have inherited the Throne, which has descended to Me through a long and ancient lineage, I now desire to send My greeting to the Ruling Chiefs of the Native States, and to the Inhabitants of My Indian Dominions, to assure them of My sincere good will and affection, and of My heartfelt wishes for their welfare. My illustrious and lamented Predecessor was the first Sovereign of this Country who took upon Herself the direct Administration of the Affairs of India, and assumed the title of Empress in token of Her closer association with the Government of that vast Country. In all matters connected with India, the Queen Empress displayed an unvarying deep personal interest, and I am well aware of the feeling of loyalty and affection evinced by the millions of its peoples towards Her Throne and Person. This feeling was conspicuously shown during the last year of Her long and glorious reign by the noble and patriotic assistance offered by the Ruling Princes in the South African War, and by the gallant services rendered by the Native Army beyond the limits of their own Country. It was by Her wish and with Her sanction that I visited India and made Myself personally acquainted with the Ruling Chiefs, the people, and the cities of that ancient and famous Empire. I shall never forget the deep impressions which I then received, and I shall endeavour to follow the great example of the first Queen Empress to work for the general well being of my Indian subjects of all ranks, and to merit, as She did, their unfailing loyalty and affection. EDWARD, R. ET I."

English feeling toward the new sovereign of the British Empire, and the English estimate of his character and promise, are probably expressed quite truly, for the general mass of intelligent people, by the following remarks of "The Times:"

"In the whole range of English social and political life there is no position more difficult to fill satisfactorily and without reproach than that of Heir Apparent to the Throne, and it may be justly said that the way in which that position has been filled for more than the ordinary lifetime of a generation has contributed to the remarkable increase of devotion to the Throne and the dynasty which is one of the most striking characteristics of Queen Victoria's reign. In the relations of private life, from his childhood upwards, 'the Prince' has been universally and deservedly popular. Cheerful and amiable, kind and generous, ever ready to sympathize with the joys and sorrows of those around him, a true friend, and a loyal antagonist, possessing considerable mental culture and wide intellectual sympathies without any tinge of pedantry, he has represented worthily the type of the genuine English gentleman. Though a lover of sport, like most of his countrymen, he differed from some of them in never regarding it as the chief interest and occupation in life. If he had been born in a humbler station he might have become a successful business man or an eminent administrator, for he possesses many of the qualities which command success in such spheres of action. He is a quick and methodical worker, arranges his time so as never to be hurried, is scrupulously conscientious in fulfilling engagements, great and small, with a punctuality which has become proverbial, never forgets to do anything he has undertaken, and never allows unanswered letters to accumulate. Few men have a larger private correspondence, and his letters have the clearness, the directness, the exquisite tactfulness, and the absolute freedom from all affectation which characterize his conversation. … "In public life he has displayed the same qualities and done a great deal of very useful work. The numerous and often irksome ceremonial duties of his position have been invariably fulfilled most conscientiously and with fitting dignity. Of the remainder of his time a considerable part has been devoted to what might be called semi-official activity. In works of benevolence and public utility and in efforts to promote the interests of science and art he was ever ready and anxious to lend a helping hand. He never forgot, however, that in his public appearances he had not the liberty of speech and action enjoyed by the ordinary Englishman. Whilst taking the keenest interest in public affairs of every kind, he carefully abstained from overstepping in the slightest degree the limits imposed on him by constitutional tradition and usage. No party clique or Court camarilla ever sheltered itself behind him, and no political intrigue was ever associated with his name. Throughout her dominions Queen Victoria had no more loyal, devoted subject than her own eldest son. If this strictly correct attitude had been confined to his relations with the Head of the State we might have supposed that it proceeded from a feeling of deep filial affection and reverence, but, as it was displayed equally in his relations with Parliament and politicians, we must assume that it proceeded also from a high and discriminating sense of duty. Of the Prime Ministers, leaders of her Majesty's Opposition, and politicians of minor degree with whom he came in contact, he may have found some more sympathetic than others, but such personal preferences were carefully concealed in his manner, which was invariably courteous and considerate, and were not allowed to influence his conduct."

{220}

In another article, the same journal again remarked that "there is no position more difficult to fill than that of Heir Apparent to the Throne," and added: "It is beset by more than all the temptations of actual Royalty, while the weight of counteracting responsibility is much less directly felt. It must be with a feeling akin to hopelessness that a man in that position offers up the familiar prayer, 'Lead us not into temptation.' Other men may avoid much temptation if they honestly endeavour to keep out of its way, but the heir to a Throne is followed, dogged, and importuned by temptation in its most seductive forms. It is not only the obviously bad that he has to guard against; he must also steel himself against much that comes in the specious garb of goodness and almost with the imperious command of necessity. The King has passed through that tremendous ordeal, prolonged through youth and manhood to middle age. We shall not pretend that there is nothing in his long career which those who respect and admire him could not wish otherwise. Which of us can say that with even approximate temptations to meet he could face the fierce light that beats upon an heir apparent no less than upon the Throne?"

The King was in his sixtieth year when he succeeded to the throne, having been born on the 9th of November, 1841. "By inheritance under a patent of Edward III., he became at once Duke of Cornwall, and a month later he was created, by patent, Prince of 'Wales and Earl of Chester—titles which do not pass by descent." He was married to the Princess Alexandra, of Denmark, on the 10th of March, 1863. The children born of the marriage have been six in all—three sons and three daughters. Of the former only one survives, Prince George, Duke of York, the second son, who will no doubt be created Prince of Wales. The eldest son, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, died in his 27th year, on the eve of his marriage. The third son, Alexander, born in 1871, died an infant. The Duke of York is married to Princess Victoria Mary, daughter of the late Duke of Teck and of his wife, Princess Mary of Cambridge. There are four children of the marriage, three sons and a daughter, the eldest son, in direct succession to the Throne, bearing the name of Prince Edward Albert. Of the daughters of the new Sovereign the eldest, Princess Louise, is the wife of the Duke of Fife and has two daughters. Of her two sisters, the Princess Victoria is unmarried. The Princess Maud became in 1896 the wife of Prince Charles of Denmark.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (February). The opening of Parliament by King Edward VII. The royal declaration against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints. Protest of Roman Catholic peers.

Parliament, reassembling on the 14th of February, was formally opened by the King in person, with a degree of pomp and ceremony which had been made strange by half a century of disuse. King and Queen were escorted in procession, with all possible state, from Buckingham Palace to Westminster. Received there, at the royal entrance, by the great officers of state, they were conducted, by a still more imposing procession of dignitaries, to the "robing room." "His Majesty being robed and the Imperial Crown borne by the Duke of Devonshire (Lord President of the Council), the Procession advanced into the House of Peers in the same order, except that the Cap of Maintenance [a mediæval symbol of dignity] was borne immediately before His Majesty, on the right hand of the Sword of State, by the Marquess of Winchester. The King being seated on his Throne, the Lord bearing the Cap of Maintenance stood on the Steps of the Throne, on the right, and the Peer bearing the Sword of State, on the left, of His Majesty. The Lord Chancellor, the Lord President and the Earl Marshal stood on the right, and the Lord Privy Seal on the left, of His Majesty; the Lord Great Chamberlain stood on the Steps of the Throne on the left hand of His Majesty, to receive the Royal Commands. The Lord Steward and the other officers of His Majesty's Household arranged themselves on each side of the Steps of the Throne, in the rear of the Great Officers of State."

By hereditary right, the ceremonial arrangements of the occasion were controlled by the Duke of Norfolk, as Earl Marshal, and the Marquess of Cholmondeley, as Lord Great Chamberlain, and they are said to have followed ancient precedent with a strictness which became very offensive to modern democratic feeling. The small chamber of the House of Lords was so filled with peeresses as well as peers that next to no room remained for the House of Commons when its members were summoned to it, to meet the King. What should have been a dignified procession behind the Speaker became, in consequence, a mob-like crush and scramble, and only some fifty out of five hundred Commoners are said to have succeeded in squeezing themselves within range of his Majesty's eye. The King, then, as required by laws of the seventeenth century (the Bill of Rights and the Test Act—see, in volume 2, ENGLAND: A. D. 1689, OCTOBER, and 1672-1673) signed and made oath to the following Declaration against the doctrine of transubstantiation, the invocation of the Virgin and the invocation of saints: "I doe solemnely and sincerely in the presence of God professe testifie and declare that I doe believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the masse as they are now used in the Church of Rome are superstitions and idolatrous, and I doe solemnely in the presence of God professe testifie and declare that I doe make this declaration and every part thereof in the plaine and ordinary sence of the words read unto me as they are commonly understood by English Protestants without any evasion, equivocation or mentall reservation whatsoever and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispence with or annull the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning."

{221}

Having thus submitted to the old test of a Protestant qualification for the Throne, the King read his Speech to Parliament, briefly stating the general posture of public affairs and setting forth the business which the two Houses were asked by government to consider. The war in South Africa was dealt with by the royal speaker in a very few words, as follows: "The war in South Africa has not yet entirely terminated; but the capitals of the enemy and his principal lines of communication are in my possession, and measures have been taken which will, I trust, enable my troops to deal effectually with the forces by which they are still opposed. I greatly regret the loss of life and the expenditure of treasure due to the fruitless guerrilla warfare maintained by Boer partisans in the former territories of the two Republics. Their early submission is much to be desired in their own interests, as, until it takes place, it will be impossible for me to establish in those colonies a government which will secure equal rights to all the white inhabitants, and protection and justice to the native population." In a later paragraph of the Speech he said: "The prolongation of hostilities in South Africa has led me to make a further call upon the patriotism and devotion of Canada and Australasia. I rejoice that my request has met with a prompt and loyal response, and that large additional contingents from those Colonies will embark for the seat of war at an early date." The Speech concluded with the following announcement of subjects and measures to be brought before Parliament: "Gentlemen of the House of Commons, The Estimates for the year will be laid before you. Every care has been taken to limit their amount, but the naval and military requirements of the country, and especially the outlay consequent on the South African war, have involved an inevitable increase.

"The demise of the Crown renders it necessary that a renewed provision shall be made for the Civil List. I place unreservedly at your disposal those hereditary revenues which were so placed by my predecessor; and I have commanded that the papers necessary for a full consideration of the subject shall be laid before you.

"My Lords and Gentlemen, Proposals will be submitted to your judgment for increasing the efficiency of my military forces.

"Certain changes in the constitution of the Court of Final Appeal are rendered necessary in consequence of the increased resort to it, which has resulted from the expansion of the Empire during the last two generations.

"Legislation will be proposed to you for the amendment of the Law relating to Education.

"Legislation has been prepared, and, if the time at your disposal shall prove to be adequate, will be laid before you, for the purpose of regulating the voluntary sale by landlords to occupying tenants in Ireland, for amending and consolidating the Factory and Workshops Acts, for the better administration of the Law respecting Lunatics, for amending the Public Health Acts in regard to Water Supply, for the prevention of drunkenness in Licensed Houses or Public Places, and for amending the Law of Literary Copyright.

"I pray that Almighty God may continue to guide you in the conduct of your deliberations, and may bless them with success."

Dated from the House of Lords, on the day of the opening, the following protest, signed by Roman Catholic peers (of whom there are thirty), against the continued requirement from the British sovereign of the Declaration quoted above, was laid before the Lord Chancellor: "My Lord,—On the opening of his first Parliament to-day his Majesty was called upon to make and subscribe the so-called Declaration against Transubstantiation, which was framed during the reign of Charles II., at a moment when religious animosities were unusually bitter.

"Some days ago we addressed ourselves to your lordship, as the chief authority on English law, to ascertain whether it was possible to bring about any modification of those parts of the Declaration which are specially provocative to the religious feelings of Catholics. We received from your lordship the authoritative assurance that no modification whatever was possible, except by an Act of Parliament, and that no action of ours would therefore be of the slightest use to effect the pacific purpose we had in view. The Sovereign himself has, it appears, no option, and is obliged by statute to use the very words prescribed, although we feel assured that his Gracious Majesty would willingly have been relieved (as all his subjects have for many years been relieved by Act of Parliament) from the necessity of branding with contumelious epithets the religious tenets of any of his subjects.

"While we submit to the law, we cannot be wholly silent on this occasion, We desire to impress upon your lordship that the expressions used in this Declaration made it difficult and painful for Catholic peers to attend to-day in the House of Lords in order to discharge their official or public duties, and that those expressions cannot but cause the deepest pain to millions of subjects of his Majesty in all parts of the Empire, who are as loyal and devoted to his Crown and person as any others in his dominions.

"We are, my lord, your lordship's most obedient and faithful servants."

_London Times, February 15, 1901._

In the House of Lords, on the 22d of February, the Marquis of Salisbury made the following reply to Lord Braye, who asked if the Prime Minister could hold out hope of an early measure to abolish the oath so offensive to Catholic subjects of the King: "Though I am very anxious to give an answer which would be satisfactory to the noble lord and his co-religionists, I do not wish to leave on his mind an impression that there are any doubts in the matter. We all of us deplore the language in which that declaration is couched, and very much wish it could be otherwise expressed; but when it comes to altering an enactment which has now lasted, as far as I know, without serious question, 200 years, and which was originally included in the Bill of Rights, it is a matter which cannot be done without very considerable thought. We must remember that an enactment of that kind represents the passions, feelings, and sensibilities of the people by whom it was originally caused; and that these have not died out. They are not strong within these walls; but there are undoubtedly parts of the country where the controversies which the declaration represents still flourish, and where the emotions which it indicates have not died out. Before an enactment is proposed, with all the discussion which must precede such an enactment, we shall have to consider how far it is desirable to light again passions which sleep at this moment, for an occasion which is not now urgent, and which we all earnestly hope may not be urgent in our lives. {222} I do not wish to debar the noble lord from any action which he may think it right to take; but I wish to point out to him the extreme difficulties and anxieties which would accompany any such attempt. With respect to the actual question of legislation, I need hardly observe that it is rather a question for the House of Commons than for us, because here I do not imagine there would be any doubt whatever about the result of such attempted legislation. But I could not be certain that a very strong feeling might not be excited elsewhere; and I notice that, possibly with a view to that consideration, the leader of the other House, in answer to a question, said that, at all events for the present year, he did not see the possibility of having the requisite opportunity of bringing the question before the House. I am afraid, therefore, however deeply I sympathize with the feelings of the noble lord and wish there had been no cause for their being appealed to, that my answer would have to be of a discouraging character."

Notwithstanding this discouraging reply to the question, Lord Salisbury, on the 21st of March, moved the following resolution in the House of Lords: "To resolve that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the declaration required of the Sovereign, on his accession, by the Bill of Rights: and to report whether its language can be modified advantageously, without diminishing its efficacy as a security for the maintenance of the Protestant succession." On introducing the resolution he said: "The only thing that it is necessary I should mention is that something has been said with respect to referring the Coronation Oath to the same committee and making in it alterations which undoubtedly will have to be made. But the two subjects are not at all similar, and it would have been impossible to put the Coronation Oath into this reference. If, later, it should be thought wise to use the same committee for the purpose of considering the matter of the Coronation Oath, I probably shall see no difficulty in that."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (February). Attitude of the Liberal party towards the South African War.

At the annual meeting of the general committee of the National Liberal Federation, held at Rugby, February 27, 1901, more than 400 affiliated Liberal Associations in England and Wales being represented by about 500 delegates, including many eminent men, the following resolution was adopted: "That this committee records its profound conviction that the long continuance of the deplorable war in South Africa, declared for electioneering purposes to be over last September, is due to the policy of demanding unconditional surrender and to a want of knowledge, foresight, and judgment on the part of the Government, who have neither demonstrated effectively to the Boers the military supremacy of Great Britain, nor so conducted the war as to induce them to lay down their arms; this committee bitterly laments the slaughter of thousands of brave men on both sides, the terrible loss of life from disease, owing in no small degree to the scandalous inadequacy of sanitary and hospital arrangements provided for our forces, and the enormous waste of resources in actual expenditure upon the war, in the devastation of territory, and in the economic embarrassments which must inevitably follow; the committee calls upon the Government to announce forthwith, and to carry out, on the cessation of hostilities, a policy for the settlement of South African affairs which will secure equal rights to the white races, just and humane treatment of natives, and such a measure of self-government as can honourably be accepted by a brave and high-spirited people."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (February). Emphatic declaration of the policy of the government in dealing with the Boers.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1901.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (March). Rejection of the Inter-oceanic Canal Treaty as amended by the United States Senate.

See (in this volume) CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1901 (MARCH).

----------ENGLAND: End--------

ENSLIN, Battle of.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

EPWORTH LEAGUE, The.

The Epworth League, an organization of young people in the Methodist Episcopal Church, on lines and with objects kindred to those of the "Young People's Society of Christian Endeavor" (see, in this volume, CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR), was instituted by a convention of representatives from various societies of young people in that church, held at Cleveland, Ohio, May 14-15, 1889. It was officially adopted by the General Conference of the M. E. Church in 1892. The Year-book of the League for 1901 says:—"A dozen years ago the Epworth League had no regularly organized Chapter. To-day it has almost twenty-one thousand. Twelve years ago it had a total membership of twenty-seven. To-day it has a million and a half. Twelve years ago the Junior League had scarcely been dreamed of. To-day it is the most promising division of the great Epworth army, having a membership of tens of thousands. Twelve years ago a suggestion to establish a newspaper organ was looked upon as a most doubtful experiment, and predictions of failure were freely made. To-day the organization has an official journal whose circulation exceeds that of any Church weekly in the world."

ETRUSCANS, The: Fresh light on their origin.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: ITALY.

EUPHRATES, Valley of the: Recent archæological exploration.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.

EUROPEAN RACES, The expansion of the.

See (in this volume) NINETEENTH CENTURY: EXPANSION.

EVOLUTION, The doctrine of: Its influence on the Nineteenth Century.

See (in this volume) NINETEENTH CENTURY: DOMINANT LINES.

EXCAVATIONS, Recent archæological.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH.

EXPLOSIVES FROM BALLOONS, Declaration against.

See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.

{223}

EXPOSITION, The Cotton States and International.

See (in this volume) ATLANTA: A. D. 1895.

EXPOSITION, National Export.

See (in this volume) INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONGRESS.

EXPOSITION, Pan-American.

See (in this volume) BUFFALO: A. D. 1901.

EXPOSITION, Paris.

See (in this volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

EXPOSITION, Scandinavian.

See (in this volume) STOCKHOLM.

EXPOSITION, Tennessee Centennial, at Nashville.

See (in this volume) TENNESSEE: A. D 1897.

EXPOSITION, Trans-Mississippi.

See (in this volume) OMAHA: A. D. 1898.

EXTERRITORIAL RIGHTS.

See (in this volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1899 (JULY).

F.

FAMINE: In China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

FAMINE: In India.

See (in this volume) INDIA: A. D. 1896-1897; and 1899-1900.

FAMINE: In Russia.

See (in this volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1899.

"FANATICS," The.

See (in this volume) BRAZIL: A. D. 1897.

FAR EASTERN QUESTION, The.

See (in this volume) CONCERT OF EUROPE.

FARM BURNING, In the South African War.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

FARMERS' ALLIANCE, and Industrial Union, The.

The Supreme Council of the Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union held its fourth annual session at Washington, February 6-8, 1900, and pledged support to whatever candidates should be named by the national convention of the Democratic Party, making, at the same time, a declaration of principles analogous to those maintained by the People's Party.

FASHODA INCIDENT, The.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

FAURE, Francois Felix, President of the French Republic. Sudden death.

See (in this volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

FEDERAL STEEL COMPANY, The.

See (in this volume) TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.

FÊNG-TIEN PENINSULA: A. D. 1894-1895. Cession in part to Japan and subsequent relinquishment.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895.

FÊNG-TIEN PENINSULA: A. D. 1900. Russian occupation and practical Protectorate.

See (in this volume) MANCHURIA: A. D. 1900.

FILIPINOS.

See (in this volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

FINLAND: A. D. 1898-1901. A blow at the constitutional rights of the country. Attempt to Russianize the Finnish army. Possible defeat of the measure.

"In July, 1898, just one month before the publication of the Czar's Peace Manifesto, the Diet of Finland was summoned to meet in extraordinary session during January, 1899, in order to debate upon the new Army Bill submitted by the Russian Government. Hitherto, the army of Finland has been strictly national in character, and has served solely for the defence of the province. The standing army has been limited to 5,600 men, 1,920 of whom are annually selected to bear arms during a period of three years. This has now been changed; the main features of the new Army Bill being as follows:

1. Finnish troops may be requisitioned for service beyond the confines of the Grand Duchy.

2. Russians may serve in the Finnish, and Finlanders in the Russian, Army.

3. A lightening of the duties of military service upon the ground of superior education will be granted to those only who can speak, read, and write Russian.

4. The period of active service under the flag is increased from three years to five.

5. The annual contingent of soldiers in active service is increased from 1,920 men to 7,200.

We at once perceive the fundamental nature of these changes, which threaten to impose a far heavier burden upon Finland, and to Russify her army. Naturally, the new law met with the most determined opposition. But while the bill was still in committee there appeared on February 15, 1899, an Imperial ukase, whereby the entire situation was radically changed, and the independence of Finland seriously threatened. This ukase decrees that while the internal administration and legislation of Finland are to remain unimpaired, matters affecting the common interests of Finland and Russia are to be no longer submitted solely to the jurisdiction of the Grand Duchy. Furthermore, the Emperor reserves to himself the final decision as to which matters are to be included in the above category. …

"The document is couched in terms expressing good-will for Finland. In effect, however, it signifies the complete demolition of the constitutional rights of that country. For in all matters involving the interests of both countries, or affecting in any way those of Russia, Finland will hereafter be confined to a mere expression of opinion: she will no longer be able to exercise the privilege of formulating an independent resolution. The definition of 'common interests' as furnished by the ukase is so vague as to make the exercise of any form of self-government on the part of the Finlanders a matter of uncertainty, if not of serious difficulty. Not only the interpretation of 'common interests,' but also the designation of the law governing them, is primarily in the hands of the Russian authorities. Finland, an independent, constitutional state [see, in volume 4, SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810], has been, or, at all events, is to be, converted into a province of Russia. …

"The conviction is general that the Czar, who had formerly manifested such good-will toward the country, and who had abrogated the enactments curtailing its constitutional rights, could not possibly have so completely changed his views within so short a time. Consequently, it was decided to address a monster petition in behalf of the people directly to the ruler himself. This plan met with the enthusiastic approval of the entire nation, and the document was signed by no fewer than 523,931 men and women of Finland. {224} A deputation of five hundred was elected to present this petition, which so eloquently voiced the conviction of the whole nation. These five hundred representatives went to St. Petersburg, and requested an audience with the Czar. But their efforts were unavailing. They were not received; and it appeared as if the united voice of a peaceful and loyal people could not penetrate to the ear of the ruler.

"In the meantime the attention of all Europe was directed to the matter; and everywhere the liveliest sympathy was manifested for that little Nation in the Northeast. … There now arose—entirely from private initiative, and without the exercise of any influence on the part of Finland—a general movement among European nations to select prominent scholars and artists; i. e., men entirely removed from the political arena, to act as representatives of the popular sentiment, and to speak a good word with the Czar in behalf of Finland. … Addresses of sympathy for Finland were formulated in England, France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway; and these addresses were signed by over one thousand and fifty scholars and artists. … All the addresses together were to be presented to the Czar by a small deputation; and for this purpose the Commission mentioned at the beginning of this article proceeded to St. Petersburg. The gentlemen took great pains to secure an audience; they went from one minister to another, and avoided every appearance of unfriendliness. Nevertheless, their request was politely declined; and the acceptance of the document bearing the signatures of over one thousand notabilitles firmly refused."

_R. Eucken, The Finnish Question (Forum, November, 1899)._

A correspondent of the "London Times," writing from Helsingfors, December 28, 1900, reported: "The situation in Finland at the end of the year is by no means improved, notwithstanding a few gratifying events, such as the permission granted by General Bobrikoff for a new daily paper to be published in Helsingfors. … Two papers, one published in a provincial town, and a weekly journal in Helsingfors, have been suppressed for ever, and the preventive censorship is applied with the utmost rigour. The Governor-General has displayed great energy in enforcing the restrictions on the right to hold meetings, and he has in circulars to the provincial Governors issued instructions for the introduction of Russian as the language of the Provincial Government offices even earlier, and more fully, than is provided for in the language ordinance promulgated last autumn. Denunciations of private persons to General Bobrikoff by secret agents, as well as public authorities, are events of well-nigh daily occurrence, and one consequence of these secret reports is that five University professors are threatened with summary dismissal unless they 'bind themselves to mix themselves up no longer in any sort of political agitation.' …

"The question of the new military law will in all probability come before the Russian Imperial Council in January, all authorities concerned having had an opportunity of expressing their views on the report made on the question by the Finnish Diet in 1899, including the Minister of War, General Kuropatkin. In conformity with the manifesto of February 15, 1899, this report will be regarded merely as an 'opinion' given by that body, in no way binding when the matter comes up for further consideration. This scheme, it will be remembered, not only imposes on Finland a military burden beyond the powers of the country, but has the political aim of denationalizing the Finnish army, and is thus intended to serve as a potent lever in the Russification of the Grand Duchy. The main features of the Bill were rejected by the Finnish Diet, but, although several members of the Imperial Council are opposed to the new scheme, it is believed that it will gain the majority in the Council in all its more salient points."

Three months later (February 26, 1901), an important change in the situation was reported from St. Petersburg by the same correspondent. The project of Russifying the Finnish army had suffered defeat, he learned, in the Council of State, by a large majority. "But," he added, "this does not by any means imply that the military reform scheme in Finland, which has been the chief cause of all the harm done to the Finnish Constitution during the last three years, has been finally upset. A similar procedure in any other European civilized country would mean as much, but it is not so in Russia. It simply means that the Russification of Finland is still being prosecuted by a small powerful minority, who will probably gain their point in spite of the vast majority of his Majesty's councillors. The Council of State, the highest institution in the sphere of supreme administration, is merely a consultative body, whose opinion can be, and often has been, set aside by the Sovereign without the least difficulty. A mere stroke of the pen is necessary.

"In the present case the Finnish military project was discussed by the four united departments of the Council. It is stated that M. Pobiedonostzeff and the Minister of War said nothing, being, perhaps, either too much impressed by the speech of M. Witte against the project, or feeling sure of their ground without the need of entering into useless discussion. M. Witte, whose influence is gradually embracing every branch of government, is also looming big in this question. He is reported to have made a speech on the occasion which carried over 40 members of the Council with him in opposition to the project. He attacked it principally on financial grounds, and declared that nobody could advise his Majesty to adopt it. The rejection of the proposal by the four departments is preliminary to its discussion by a plenary assembly of the Council, and only after that has taken place will the opinion of the majority be laid before the Emperor,"

FIST OF RIGHTEOUS HARMONY, Society of the.

See(in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, The.

See (in this volume) INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1893-1899.

FORBIDDEN CITY, March of allied forces through the.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST 15-28).

FORMOSA: A. D. 1895. Cession by China to Japan.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895.

FORMOSA: A. D. 1896. Chinese risings against the Japanese.

See (in this volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1896.

{225}

----------FRANCE: Start--------

FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1896. Final subjugation and annexation of Madagascar.

See (in this volume) MADAGASCAR.

FRANCE: A. D. 1895. Cession of Kiang-Hung by China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895 (MARCH-JULY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1895. Ministerial changes. The alliance with Russia.

On the resignation of the presidency of the Republic by M. Casimir-Perier and the election of M. Felix Faure to succeed him (January 15-17), a ministry was formed which represented the moderate republican groups, with M. Ribot at its head, as President of the Council and Minister of Finance, and with M. Hanotaux as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

See, in volume 2, FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895).

The most important work of the new government was the arrangement of an alliance with Russia, which was conspicuously signified to the world by the union of the French and Russian fleets when they entered the German harbor of Kiel, on the 17th of June, to take part in the celebration of the opening of the Kaiser Wilhelm Ship Canal, between the Baltic and North Seas (see, in this volume, GERMANY: A. D. 1895, JUNE). This gave the greatest possible satisfaction to the nation, and powerfully strengthened the ministers for a time; but they were discredited a little later in the year by disclosures of waste, extravagance and peculation in the military department. Early in the autumn session of the Chamber of Deputies a vote was carried against them, and they resigned. A more radical cabinet was then formed, under M. Leon Bourgeois, President of the Council and Minister of the Interior; with M. Berthelot holding the portfolio of foreign affairs, M. Cavaignac that of war, and M. Lockroy that of the marine.

FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (January). Agreement with Great Britain concerning Siam.

See (in this volume) SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (March). Census of the Republic.

Returns of a national census taken in March showed a population in France of 38,228,969, being an increase in five years of only 133,919. The population of Paris was 2,511;955.

FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (April-May). Change of Ministry. Socialist gains.

After a long conflict with a hostile Senate, the Radical Ministry of M. Bourgeois gave way and was succeeded, April 30, by a Cabinet of Moderate Republicans, in which M. Méline presided, holding the portfolio of Agriculture, and with M. Hanotaux returned to the direction of Foreign Affairs. At municipal elections in the following month the Socialists made important gains. "The elections of May, 1896, revealed the immense progress that socialism had made in all lands since the year 1893. Towns as important as Lille, Roubaix, Calais, Montluçon, Narbonne, re-elected socialist majorities to administer their affairs; and even where there was only a socialist minority, a socialist mayor was elected, as in the case of Dr. Flaissières at Marseilles, and Cousteau at Bordeaux. But in the small towns and the villages our victories have been especially remarkable. The Parti Ouvrier alone can reckon more than eighteen hundred m municipal councillors elected upon its collectivist programme; and at the Lille Congress, which was held a few days before the International Congress in London, thirty-eight socialist municipal councils and twenty-one socialist minorities of municipal councils were represented by their mayors or by delegates chosen by the party."

_P. Lafargue, Socialism in France (Fortnightly Review, September, 1897)._

FRANCE: A. D. 1897. Industrial combinations.

See (in this volume) TRUSTS: IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1897 (May-June). Cessions and concessions from China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1897 (MAY-JUNE).

FRANCE: A. D. 1897 (June). Renewal of the privileges of the Bank of France.

See (in this volume) MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897.

FRANCE: A. D. 1897 (July). Co-operation with American envoys in negotiations for a bi-metallic agreement with Great Britain.

See (in this volume) MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899. The Dreyfus Affair.

Although Captain Alfred Dreyfus, of the French army, was arrested, tried by court-martial, convicted of treasonable practices, in the betrayal of military secrets to a foreign power, and thereupon degraded and imprisoned, in 1894, it was not until 1897 that his case became historically important, by reason of the unparalleled agitations to which it gave rise, threatening the very life of the French Republic, and exciting the whole civilized world. Accordingly we date the whole extraordinary story of Captain Dreyfus and his unscrupulous enemies in the French Army Staff from that year, in order to place it in proper chronological relations with other events. As told here, the story is largely borrowed from a singularly clear review of its complicated incidents by Sir Godfrey Lushington, formerly Permanent Under Secretary in the British Home Office, which appeared in the "London Times," while the question of a revision of the Dreyfus trial was pending in the Court of Cassation. We are indebted to the publisher of "The Times" for permission to make use of it:

"In October, 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, an artillery officer on the staff, was arrested for treason. He belonged to a respected and highly loyal Jewish family in Alsace, his military character was unblemished, and he was in easy circumstances. At this time General Mercier was Minister of War, General de Boisdeffre Chief of the Staff (practically Commander-in-Chief of the French army), General Gonse, Assistant-Chief. Colonel Sandherr, well known as an Anti-Semite, was head of the Intelligence Department, under him were Commandants Picquart, Henry, and Lauth, also the Archivist Griblin. Commandant Du Paty de Clam was an officer attached to the general staff. Commandant Esterhazy was serving with his regiment. On October 15, on the order of the Minister of War, Captain Dreyfus was arrested by Commandant Du Paty de Clam, and taken in the charge of Commandant Henry to the Cherche-Midi Prison, of which Commandant Forzinetti was governor. For a fortnight extraordinary precautions were taken to keep his arrest an absolute secret from the public and even from his own family. His wife alone knew of it, but dared not speak. … So harsh was his treatment that Commandant Forzinetti felt it his duty to take the strong step of making a formal representation to the Minister of War and also to the Governor of Paris, at the same time declaring his own conviction that Captain Dreyfus was an innocent man. {226} On October 31 Commandant Du Paty de Clam made his report, which has not seen the light, and on November 3 Commandant d'Ormescheville was appointed 'rapporteur' to conduct a further inquiry, and in due course to draw up a formal report, which practically constitutes the case for the prosecution. Not till then was Captain Dreyfus informed of the particulars of the charge about to be laid against him. From this report of Commandant d'Ormescheville's we learn that the basis of the accusation against Captain Dreyfus was a document known by the name of the 'bordereau' [memorandum]. Neither Commandant d'Ormescheville's report nor the 'bordereau' has been officially published by the Government, but both ultimately found their way into the newspapers. The bordereau was a communication not dated, nor addressed, nor signed. It began:—'Sans nouvelles m'indiquant que vous désirez me voir, je vous adresse cependant, Monsieur, quelques renseignemcnts intéressants.' ['Without news indicating that you wish to see me, I send you, nevertheless, monsieur, some important information.'] (Then followed the titles of various military documents, 1, 2, &c.) The report stated that the bordereau had fallen into the hands of the Minister of War, but how the Minister declined to say, beyond making a general statement that the circumstances showed that it had been sent to an agent of a foreign Power. It is now generally accepted that it had been brought to the War Office by a spy—an Alsatian porter who was in the service of Colonel von Schwarzkoppen, then the military attache to the German Embassy in Paris. The report contained nothing to show that Captain Dreyfus had been following treasonable practices or to connect him in any manner with the bordereau. The sole question for the Court-martial was whether the bordereau was in his handwriting. On this the experts were divided, three being of opinion that it was, two that it was not, in his handwriting.

"The Court-martial was duly held, and Captain Dreyfus had the aid of counsel, Maître Demange; but the first act of the Court was, at the instance of the Government representative, to declare the 'huis cols,' so that none but those concerned were present. After the evidence had been taken the Court, according to custom, adjourned to consider their verdict in private. Ultimately they found Captain Dreyfus guilty, and he was sentenced to be publicly expelled from the army and imprisoned for life. Not till after his conviction was he allowed to communicate with his wife and family. The sentence has been carried out with the utmost rigour. Captain Dreyfus was transported to the Isle du Diable [off the coast of French Guiana], where he lives in solitary confinement. … The Court-martial having been held within closed doors, the public at large knew nothing … beyond the fact that Captain Dreyfus had been convicted of betraying military secrets to a foreign Power, and they had no suspicion that there had been any irregularity at the Court-martial or that the verdict was a mistaken one. … For two years the Dreyfus question may be said to have slumbered. In the course of this time Colonel Sandherr, who died in January, 1897, had been compelled to retire from ill-health, and Commandant Picquart became head of the Intelligence Department. … In May, 1896, there were brought to the Intelligence Department of the War Office some more sweepings from Colonel von Schwarzkoppen's waste-paper basket by the same Alsatian porter who had brought the bordereau. These were put by Commandant Henry into a packet, and given by him (according to the usual custom) to Commandant Picquart. Commandant Picquart swears that amongst these were about 60 small pieces of paper. These (also according to custom) he gave to Commandant Lauth to piece together. When pieced together they were found to constitute the document which is known by the name of 'Petit bleu, à carte télégramme' for transmission through the Post-office, but which had never been posted. It was addressed to Commandant Esterhazy, and ran as follows:

"'J'attendsavant tout une explication plus détaillée que celle que vous m'avez donnée, l'autre jour, sur la question en suspens. En conséquence, je vous prie de me la donner par écrit, pour pouvoir juger si je puis continuer mes relations avec la maison R … ou non. [I await, before anything farther, a more detailed explanation than you gave me the other day on the question now in suspense. In consequence, I request you to give this to me in writing, that I may judge whether I can continue my relations with the house of R. or not.] M. le Commandant Esterhazy, 27, Rue de la Bienfaisance, Paris.'

"At this time Commandant Esterhazy was a stranger to Commandant Picquart, and the first step which Commandant Picquart took was to make inquiry as to who and what he was. His character proved most disreputable, and he was in money difficulties. The next was to obtain a specimen of his handwriting in order to compare it with other writings which had been brought by spies to the office and were kept there. In this way it came about that it was compared with the facsimile of the bordereau, when, lo and behold, the writings of the two appeared identical. It was Commandant Esterhazy, then, who had written the bordereau, and if Commandant Esterhazy, then not Captain Dreyfus. … Commandant Picquart acquainted his chiefs with what had been done—namely, General de Boisdeffre in July, and his own immediate superior, General Gonse, in September. …

"On September 15 of the same year, 1896, took place the first explosion. This solely concerned the Dreyfus trial. On that day the 'Éclair,' an anti-Semite newspaper, published an article headed 'Le Traitre,' in which they stated that at the Court-martial the 'pièce d'accusation' on which Captain Dreyfus was tried was the bordereau; but that after the Court had retired to the 'chamber of deliberation,' there was communicated to them from the War Office, in the absence of the prisoner and his counsel, a document purporting to be addressed by the German military attaché to his colleague at the Italian Embassy in Paris, and ending with a postscript, 'Cet animal de Dreyfus devient trop exigcant'; further, that this document was the only one in which appeared the name Dreyfus. This at once had removed all doubts from the minds of the Court-martial, who thereupon had unanimously brought the prisoner in guilty; and the 'Eclair' called upon the Government to produce this document and thus satisfy the public conscience. This document has, for sufficient reasons hereinafter appearing, come to be known as 'le document libérateur,' and by this name we will distinguish it. {227} As to the article in the 'Eclair,' it must have proceeded either from a member of the Court-martial or from some one in the War Office; but whether its contents were true is a matter which to this day has not been fully cleared up. This much, however, is known. We have the authority of Maître Demange (Captain Dreyfus's advocate) that no such document was brought before the Court-martial during the proceedings at which he was present. On the other hand, it has now been admitted that at the date of Captain Dreyfus's trial there was, and that there had been for some months previously, in the archives of the War Office a similar document, not in the Dreyfus' dossier' proper, but in a secret dossier, only that the words therein are not 'Cet animal de Dreyfus,' but 'Ce (sic) canaille de D—' (initial only) 'devient trop exigeant.' … The Government have never yet either admitted or denied that General Mercier went down to the Court-martial and made to them a secret communication. …

"As might have been expected, the article in the 'Eclair' occasioned a considerable stir; both parties welcomed it, the one as showing Captain Dreyfus to have been really a traitor and therefore justly deserving his sentence; the other as a proof that whether guilty or not he had been condemned illegally on a document used behind his back. The public excitement was increased when on the 10th of November the 'Matin'—a War Office journal—published what purported to be a fac-simile of the bordereau, and a host of experts and others set to work to compare it with the accused's handwriting. The reproduction was no doubt made, not from the original bordereau, which was in the sealed-up Dreyfus dossier, but from a photograph of it. And the photograph must have been obtained surreptitiously from some one in the War Office or from some one who had attended the secret Court-martial. … The natural sequel to these revelations was an interpellation in the Chamber—the 'interpellation Castelin' of November 18, 1896. On that day, M. Castelin, an anti-Semite deputy, by asking some question as to the safe custody of Dreyfus, gave the Government an opportunity. General Billot, then Minister of War, replied in general terms—'L'instruction de l'affaire, les débats, le jugement, ont eu lieu conformément aux règles de la procédure militaire. Le Conseil de Guerre regulièrement compose, a regulièrement déliberé,' &c. ['The instructions, the debates, the verdict, have all taken place conformably to the rules of military procedure. The Court-martial, regularly composed, has deliberated regularly,' etc.] … On November 14, 1896, on the eve of the Interpellation Castelin, Commandant Picquart was sent on a secret mission, which has not been disclosed. He left his duties as head of the Intelligence Department nominally in the hands of General Gonse, his superior, but practically to be discharged by Commandant Henry, who was Commandant Picquart's subordinate. He requested his family to address their private letters for him to the War Office, whence they would be forwarded. His secret mission, or missions, took him first to Nancy, then to Besançon (permission being refused to him to return to Paris even for a night to renew his wardrobe), later on to Algeria and Tunisia, with instructions to proceed to the frontier. … In March, 1897, Commandant Picquart was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel of the 4th Tirailleurs, the appointment being represented to him as a favour. He was the youngest Colonel in the service. In his stead Commandant Henry became Chief of the Intelligence Department. … From the first Colonel Picquart had, of course, felt some uneasiness at being sent on these missions away from his ordinary duties, and various little circumstances occurred to increase it, and in May, 1897, having occasion to write unofficially to Commandant Henry, now Chief of the Intelligence Department, he expressed himself strongly as to the mystery and falsities with which his departure had been surrounded; and he received a reply dated June 3, in which Commandant Henry said that the mystery he could well enough explain by what had come to his knowledge after some inquiry, and he alluded in general to three circumstances—(1) Opening letters in the post; (2) attempt to suborn two officers in the service to speak to a certain writing as being that of a certain person; and (3) the opening of a secret dossier. The first Colonel Picquart knew to refer to his having intercepted Commandant Esterhazy's letters; the other two allusions he did not at the time (June, 1897) fully understand; but the letter, couched in such terms and coming from one who had until lately been his subordinate, and was now the head of the Department, convinced him that he was the object of serious and secret machinations in the War Office. He immediately applied for leave and came to Paris. There he determined, with a view to his self-defence, to obtain legal advice from an advocate, M. Leblois; saw him, and showed him Colonel Henry's letter, and, whilst abstaining (according to his own account and that of M. Leblois) from touching on the third matter, the secret dossier, spoke freely on the other two—on the 'affaires' Dreyfus and Esterhazy generally; also, in order to explain how far he had acted with the sanction or cognizance of his superiors, he placed in his hands the correspondence—not official but confidential—about Commandant Esterhazy which he had had with General Gonse in 1896. He left it to M. Leblois to take what course he might think necessary, and returned to Sousse. In the course of the autumn he was summoned to Tunis and asked by the military authority there whether he had been robbed of a secret document by a woman. The question seemed a strange one and was answered by him with a simple negative. Later on he received at Sousse two telegrams from Paris, dated November 10. One:—'Arretez Bondieu. Tout est découvert. Affaire très grave. Speranza.' This was addressed to Tunis and forwarded to Sousse. The other:—'On a des preuves que le bleu est fabriqué par Georges. Blanche.' This was addressed to Sousse. And two days after he received a letter, likewise of November 10, from Esterhazy, an abusive one, charging him with conspiring against him, &c. He felt certain that the telegrams were sent in order to compromise him. … Colonel Picquart suspected Commandant Esterhazy to be the author of the telegrams, the more so that in Commandant Esterhazy's letter and in one of the telegrams his own name Picquart was spelt without a c. He at once telegraphed to Tunis for leave to come and see the General there. {228} He did see him and through him forwarded to the Minister of War the three documents, with a covering letter in which he demanded an inquiry. He then obtained leave to go to Paris, but the condition was imposed on him that he should see no one before presenting himself to General de Pellieux. When he saw the General he learnt for the first time and to his surprise that ever since he left Paris in November, 1896, his letters had been intercepted and examined at the War Office and he was called upon to explain various letters and documents. …

"Before June, 1897, Commandant Esterhazy's name had not been breathed to the public; it is now to come out, and from two independent sources. Some little time after seeing Colonel Picquart, in June, 1897, M. Leblois had determined, in his interest, to consult M. Scheurer-Kestner, who was well known to have taken an interest in the 'affaire Dreyfus,' because of the suspicion that Captain Dreyfus had been condemned on a document which he had never seen and because of the discrepancies between Captain Dreyfus's handwriting and that of the bordereau. He was Vice-President of the Senate and a personal friend of General Billot, the Minister of War. M. Leblois communicated to him what he knew about Commandant Esterhazy and showed him General Gonse's letters to Colonel Picquart. In October M. Scheurer-Kestner communicated on the subject both with General Billot and with the President of the Council, M. Méline. He was now to learn the name of Commandant Esterhazy from another quarter. One afternoon in the end of October a M. de Castro, a stock-broker, was seated in a cafe in Paris, and a boy from the street came up with copies of the facsimile of the bordereau, which had then been on sale for more than a year. M. de Castro bought a copy, and at once recognized, as he thought, the handwriting of the bordereau to be that of Commandant Esterhazy, who was a client of his. He took the copy home, compared it with letters of Commandant Esterhazy, and all doubts vanished. His friends told M. Matthieu Dreyfus, who begged him to take the letters to M. Scheurer-Kestner, and he did so on November 12, 1897, and M. Scheurer-Kestner advised that M. Matthieu Dreyfus should go to General Billot and denounce Commandant Esterhazy as the author of the bordereau. And now to turn to Commandant Esterhazy. His own statement is this. In the month of October, 1897, when in the country, he received a letter from 'Speranza' giving minute details of a plot against himself, the instigator of which was, Speranza said, a colonel named Picquart (without the c). He at once went to Paris, saw the Minister of War, and gave him Speranza's letter. Shortly afterwards he received a telegram asking him to be behind the palisades of the bridge Alexander III. at 11.30 p.m. He would there meet a person who would give him important information. He kept his appointment, met a veiled woman, who, first binding him over under oath to respect her incognito, gave him long details of the plot of the 'band' against himself. Afterwards he had three similar interviews, but not at the same place. At the second of these four interviews the unknown woman gave him a letter, saying:—'Prenez la pièce contenue dans cette enveloppe, elle prouve votre innocence, et si le torchon brûle, n'hésitez pas it vous en servir.' ['Take the piece contained in this envelope, it proves your innocence, and if there is trouble do not hesitate to use it.'] This document, henceforward called 'le document libérateur,' was no other than the letter referred to in the 'Eclair' (ce canaille de D.), which, of course, ought to have been safe in the archives of the Intelligence Department. On November 14 Commandant Esterhazy returned this document to the Minister of War under a covering letter in which he called upon his chief to defend his honour thus menaced. The Minister of War sent Commandant Esterhazy a receipt. The next day the Minister received a letter from M. Matthieu Dreyfus denouncing Commandant Esterhazy as the author of the bordereau. The letter of Speranza to Commandant Esterhazy has not yet been divulged to the public; and the War Office, after diligent inquiries, have not been able to find the veiled woman. Very different was the interpretation put on this narrative by M. Trarieux, ex-Minister of Justice, and others interested in revision. Their suggestion was that Commandant Esterhazy was in the first instance apprised beforehand by his friends in the War Office of the coming danger and was for flying across the frontier, but that subsequently these same friends, finding that the chiefs of the army were fearful of being compromised by his flight from justice and would make common cause with him, wished to recall him, and with this view, took from the archives the 'document libérateur,' and sent it to him as an assurance that he might safely return and stand his trial, and also with a view to his claiming the credit of having restored to the office a document which it was now intended to charge Colonel Picquart with abstracting. On November 16, 1897, on a question being asked in the Chamber, General Billot, Minister of War, replied that he had made inquiries, and the result 'n'ébranlait nullement dans lion esprit l'autorité de la chose jugée,' but that as a formal denunciation of an officer of the army had been made by the 'famille Dreyfus,' there would be a military investigation. A fortnight or so afterwards he 'repeated that the Government considered the 'affaire Dreyfus comme régulièrement et justement jugée.' Here, as elsewhere, the reader will remember that the question at issue was who was the author of the bordereau, and that if Captain Dreyfus was, Commandant Esterhazy could not be. Consequently, a public declaration by the Minister of War that Captain Dreyfus had been justly condemned was as much as to say that Commandant Esterhazy must be acquitted. … Commandant Esterhazy was acquitted.

"On the morrow of Commandant Esterhazy's acquittal M Zola launched his letter of January 13, 1898, which was addressed to the President, of the Republic, and wound up with a series of formal accusations attributing the gravest iniquities to all concerned in either of the Courts-martial, each officer being in turn pointedly mentioned by name. M. Zola's avowed object was to get himself prosecuted for defamation and so obtain an opportunity for bringing out 'la lumière' on the whole situation. The Minister of War so far accepted the challenge as to institute a prosecution at the Assizes; but resolving to maintain the 'chose jugée' as to the 'affaire Dreyfus,' he carefully chose his own ground so as to avoid that subject, selecting from the whole letter only 15 lines as constituting the defamation. {229} In particular as to one sentence, which ran:—['J'accuse enfin le Premier Conseil de Guerre d'avoir violé le droit en condamnant un accuse sur une pièce restée secrète, et] j'accuse le Second Conseil de Guerre d'avoir couvert cette illegalité par ordre, en commettant à son tour le crime juridiquc d'acquitter sciemment un coupable'; ['I accuse, finally, the first Court-martial of having violated the law in its conviction of the accused on the strength of a document kept secret; and I accuse the second Court-martial of having covered this illegality, acting under orders and committing in its turn the legal crime of knowingly acquitting a guilty person.']

"The prosecution omitted the first half of the sentence, the part within brackets. By French law it is for the defendants to justify the defamatory words assigned, and to prove their good faith. But this was a difficult task even for M. Labori, the counsel for M. Zola. There were several notable obstacles to be passed before light could reach the Court:

1. The 'chose jugée' as applicable to the 'affaire Dreyfus.'

2. The 'huis clos'; the whole proceedings at the Dreyfus trial, and all the more important part of the proceedings at the Esterhazy trial, having been conducted within closed doors.

3. The 'secret d'Etat' excluding all reference to foreign Governments.

4. The 'secret professionnel,' pleaded not only by officers civil and military, but even by the experts employed by the Court for the identification of handwriting.

5. To these may be added the unwillingness of a witness for any reason whatever.

Thus Colonel Du Paty de Clam was allowed to refuse to answer questions as to his conduct in family affairs; and, as for Commandant Esterhazy, he turned his back on the defendants and refused to answer any question whatever suggested by them, although it was put to him by the mouth of the Judge. … Of the above-mentioned obligations to silence, three were such as it was within the competence of the Government to dispense from. No dispensation was given, and hence it was that the Minister of War was seen as prosecutor pressing his legal right to call upon the defendants, under pain of conviction, to prove the truth of the alleged libel, and at the same time, by the exercise or non-exercise of his official authority, preventing the witnesses for the defence from stating the facts which were within their knowledge and most material to the truth. But the 'chose jugée' was a legal entity by which was meant not merely that the sentence could not be legally disputed, but that it was to be accepted as 'la vérité légale'; no word of evidence was to be admitted which in any way referred to any part of the proceedings—the whole affair was to be eliminated. The bar thus raised was very effectual in shutting out of Court large classes of witnesses who could speak only to the 'affaire Dreyfus' … whatever was the rule as to the 'chose jugée,' it should have been enforced equally on both parties. This was not always the case. One single example of the contrary shall be given, which, as will be shown hereafter, events have proved to be of the utmost significance. General de Pellieux had completed his long evidence, but having received from 'a Juror' a private letter to the effect that the jury would not convict M. Zola unless they had some further proof of the guilt of Captain Dreyfus, on a subsequent day he asked leave to make a supplementary deposition and then said:—

"'Au moment de l'interpellation Castelin [i. e., in 1896] it s'est produit un fait que je tiens à signaler. On a eu au Ministère de la Guerre (et remarquez que je ne parle pas de l'affaire Dreyfus) la preuve absolue de la culpabilité de Dreyfus, et cette preuve je l'ai vile. Au moment de cette interpellation, il est arrivé au Ministère de la Guerre un papier dont l'origine ne peut être contestée, et qui dit—je vous dirai ce qu'il y a dedans—"Il va se produire une interpellation sur l'affaire Dreyfus. Ne dites jamais les relations que nous avons eues avec ce juif."' ['At the time of the Castelin interpellation (1896) there was a fact which I want to point out. The Ministry of War held—remark that I am not speaking of the Dreyfus case—absolute proof of the guilt of Dreyfus; and this proof I have seen. At the moment of that interpellation there arrived at the Ministry of War a paper the origin of which is incontestable, and which says,—I will tell you what it says,—"There is going to be an interpellation about the Dreyfus affair. You must never disclose the relations which we had with that Jew."'] And General de Pellieux called upon General de Boisdeffre and General Gonse to confirm what he said, and they did so. But when M. Labori asked to see the document and proposed to cross-examine the generals upon it, the Judge did not allow him, 'Nous n'avons pas à parler de l'affaire Dreyfus.' It may be conceived what effect such a revelation, made by the chiefs of the French army in full uniform, had upon the jury. They pronounced M. Zola guilty and found no extenuating circumstances; and he was sentenced by the Judge to the maximum penalty, viz., imprisonment for a year and a fine of 3,000 francs.

"On April 2 the Zola case is brought up before the Court of Cassation [the French Court of Appeals] and the Court quashes the verdict of the Assizes, on the technical ground that the prosecution had been instituted by the wrong person. The Minister of War was incompetent to prosecute; the only persons competent were those who could allege they had been defamed— in this instance the persons constituting the Esterhazy Court-martial. … The officers who had sat at the Esterhazy Court-martial were then called together again in order to decide whether M. Zola should be reprosecuted. To put a stop to any unwillingness on their part, M. Zola published in the 'Siècle' of April 7 a declaration of Count Casella, which the Count said he would have deposed to on oath at the former trial if the Judge had allowed him to be a witness. This declaration gave a detailed history of various interviews in Paris with Count Panizzardi, the military attaché at the Italian Embassy, and at Berlin with Colonel von Schwarzkoppen, who had been the military attache at the German Embassy. According to Count Casella, both these officers had declared positively to him that they had had nothing to do with Captain Dreyfus, but Colonel von Schwarzkoppen much with Commandant Esterhazy. It will be said that this declaration of Count Casella had not been sifted by cross-examination; but it is understood that at the end of 1896, immediately after the 'Éclair' made the revelation of 'le document libérateur,' both the German and Italian Governments made a diplomatic representation to the French Government, denying that they had had anything to do with Captain Dreyfus. {230} At all events, in January, 1898, official denials had been publicly made by the German Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Budget Commission of the Reichstag and by the Italian Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Parliament at Home. The officers of the Court-martial resolve to reprosecute, and the case is fixed for the May Assizes at Versailles. When the case comes on, M. Zola demurs to its being tried outside Paris; the demurrer is overruled by the Court of Cassation, and ultimately, on July 18, the case comes on again at the Versailles Assizes. The charge, however, is now cut down from what it had been on the first trial in Paris. Of the whole letter of M. Zola now only three lines are selected as defamatory—viz.:—'Un conseil de guerre vient par ordre d'oser acquitter un Esterhazy, soufflet suprême à toute vérité, à toute justice.' ['The Court-martial has by order dared to acquit an Esterhazy, supreme blow to all truth, to all justice.'] This selection was manifestly designed to shut out any possibility of reference to the 'affaire Dreyfus,' and M. Labori, finding that any attempt to import it would be vain, allowed the case to go by default, and M. Zola was condemned and, as before, sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a fine of 3,000f. He has appealed to the Com de Cassation, and the appeal may be heard in the course of the autumn. To secure his own liberty in the meantime, M. Zola has avoided personal service of the order of the Assizes by removing beyond the frontier.

"We will now go back to Colonel Picquart. During the year 1897 he had become aware that in the Intelligence Department suspicions were expressed that the 'petit-bleu' was not a genuine document and insinuations made that Colonel Picquart had forged it. … The ground on which this imputation was rested came out clearly in the evidence which was given subsequently in the Zola trial, to which reference may now be made. The sweepings of Colonel von Schwarzkoppen's basket had been brought by a spy to the Intelligence Department, and were given first into the hands of Commandant Henry, who put them into a packet or 'cornet' and passed them on to Colonel Picquart to examine. Colonel Picquart swore that on examination he had found amongst the papers a large number of fragments, fifty or sixty. These he gave to Commandant Lauth to piece together and photograph. When pieced together they were found to constitute the 'petit-bleu' addressed to Commandant Esterhazy, who at that time was a perfect stranger to Colonel Picquart. At the Zola trial Colonel Henry had sworn that the pieces were not in the 'cornet' when he gave it, to Colonel Picquart, and the insinuation was that Colonel Picquart had forged the document, torn it in pieces, and put the pieces into the 'cornet.' … Commandant Esterhazy was acquitted by the Court-martial, and on the very next day Colonel Picquart was himself summoned to submit to a military inquiry. The Court-martial sat with closed doors, so that neither the charges nor the proceedings nor the findings would be known to the public, but the findings have found their way into the newspapers. [Picquart, cleared himself on the main charges.] … But as to the charge (which had never been disputed) that in 1897 Colonel Picquart had communicated General Gonse's letters to M. Leblois, this the Court found to be proved; and for this military offence Colonel Picquart was removed from the army upon a pension of a little more than 2,000f., or £80, per annum. Other chastisements have followed. …

"We now come to the famous declaration of July 7 (1898), made by M. Cavaignac, Minister of War. On an interpellation by M. Castelin, the Minister of War replied that hitherto the Government had respected the 'chose jugée,' but now considerations superior to reasons of law made it necessary for them to bring before the Chamber and the country all the truth in their possession, the facts which had come to confirm the conviction of Captain Dreyfus. He made this declaration because of the absolute certainty he had of his guilt. He based his declaration first on documents in the Intelligence Department, and then on Captain Dreyfus's own confessions. The latter will here be dealt with first. The Minister relied on two witnesses. One was Captain d'Attel, who on the day of Captain Dreyfus's resignation had told Captain Anthoine that Captain Dreyfus had just said in his presence, 'As to what I have handed over, it was worth nothing. If I had been let alone I should have had more in exchange.' Captain Anthoine had, according to the Minister, immediately repeated these words to Major de Mitry. But Captain d'Attel is dead, and M. Cavaignac did not state to the Chamber at what date or on whose authority this information came to the War Office. The other witness was a Captain Lebrun-Renault, still alive, who had acted as captain of the escort on the day of degradation, January 5, 1895. … The Minister omits to specify the date at which Captain Lebrun-Renault first communicated to the War Office. It is believed to be in November, 1897; and against these allegations may be set the testimony of Commandant Forzinetti, the governor of the prison in which Captain Dreyfus was confined, to the effect that there is no record of confession in the official report made at the time by Captain Lebrun-Renault, as Captain of the escort, and that within the last year the Captain had denied to him (Commandant Forzinetti) that there had been any confession. Further we know that throughout his imprisonment before trial, at the trial, at the scene of his degradation, and in his letter written immediately afterwards to his wife, and to the Minister of War, Captain Dreyfus protested his innocence and that he had never committed even the slightest imprudence.

"Then as to the documents confirmatory of the conviction of Captain Dreyfus. M. Cavaignac did not say whether by this term 'guilt' be meant that Captain Dreyfus had been guilty of writing the bordereau, or had been guilty otherwise as a traitor. Indeed it was remarked that he never so much as mentioned the bordereau. Was, then, the bordereau dropped, as a document, no longer recognized to be in the handwriting of Captain Dreyfus? But he informed the Chamber that the Intelligence Department had during the last six years accumulated 1,000 documents and letters relating to espionage, of the authorship of which there was no reasonable doubt. {231} He would call the attention of the Chamber to only three, all of which, he said, had passed between the persons who had been mentioned (Colonel von Schwarzkoppen and M. Panizzardi). Here again it was noticed that the 'document libérateur' (ce canaille de D.) was not mentioned. Had this, too, been dropped as no longer to be relied upon, because' D.' did not mean Dreyfus, or was it now omitted because it had been produced at the Court-martial by General Mercier and therefore could not be said to be confirmatory of his conviction? Of the three documents which M. Cavaignac specified, the first, dated in March, 1894, made reference to a person indicated as D.; the second, dated April 16, 1894, contained the expression 'cette canaille de D.,' the same as that used in the 'document libérateur.' The third was no other than 'la preuve absolue' which General de Pellieux had imported into his evidence in the Zola trial as having been in the hands of the Government at the time of the Castelin interpellation in November, 1896. M. Cavaignac read out its contents, of which the following is an exact transcript:—'J'ai lu qu'un député va interpeller sur Dreyfus. Si—je dirai que jamais j'avais des relations avec ce Juif. C'est entendu. Si on vous demande, dites comme ça, car il faut pas que on sache jamais personne ce qui est arrivé avec lui.' ['I read that a deputy is going to question concerning Dreyfus. I shall say that I never had relations with that Jew. If they ask you, say the same, for it is necessary that we know no one who approaches him.'] M. Cavaignac went on to say that the material authenticity of this document depended not merely on its origin, but also on its similarity with a document written in 1894 on the same paper and with the same blue pencil, and that its moral authenticity was established by its being part of a correspondence exchanged between the same persons in 1896. 'The first writes to the other, who replies in terms which left no obscurity on the cause of their common uneasiness.' The Chamber was transported with the speech of the Minister of War, and, treating it as a 'coup de grâce' to the 'affaire Dreyfus,' decreed by a majority of 572 to two that a print of it should be placarded in the 36,000 communes of France. On the next day Colonel Picquart wrote a letter to the Minister of War undertaking to prove that the first two documents had nothing to do with Captain Dreyfus, and that the third, 'la preuve absolue,' was a forgery. Within six weeks his words as to 'la preuve absolue' come true. On August 31 the public are startled with the announcement that Colonel Henry has confessed to having forged it himself, and has committed suicide in the fortress Mont Valérien, being found with his throat cut and a razor in his left hand. The discovery of the forgery was stated to have arisen from a clerk in the Intelligence Department having detected by the help of a specially strong lamp that the blue paper of 'la preuve absolue' was not identical with the blue paper of a similar document of 1894 which M. Cavaignac had relied upon as a proof of its material authenticity. … As a sequel to this confession, General de Boisdeffre, chief of the staff, has resigned, feeling he could not remain after having placed before the Minister of War as genuine a document proved to be a forgery. Commandant Esterhazy has been removed from the active list of the army, having been brought by M. Cavaignac before a Court-martial sitting with closed doors—his offence not disclosed, but conceived to be his anti-patriotic correspondence with a Mme. de Boulancy. A like fate has befallen Colonel Du Paty de Clam from a similar Court-martial instituted by M. Cavaignac's successor, his offence likewise not disclosed, but presumed to be improper communication of official secrets to Commandant Esterhazy. …

"However, notwithstanding the confession of Colonel Henry, M. Cavaignac insisted that Captain Dreyfus was guilty, and refused consent to revision. The Cabinet not acceding to this view, M. Cavaignac resigns the Ministry of War, and is succeeded by General Zurlinden, then military Governor of Paris. General Zurlinden asks first to be allowed time to study the dossier, and after a week's study and communication with the War Office staff he also declares his opposition to revision, retires from the Ministry of War, and resumes his post of Governor of Paris. With him also retires one other member of the Cabinet. Then the Minister of Justice takes the first formal step in referring the matter to a legal Commission, the technical question at issue appearing to be whether the confession by Colonel Henry—a witness in the case—of a forgery committed by him subsequently to the conviction with a view to its confirmation might be considered either as a new fact in the case or as equivalent to a conviction for forgery, so as to justify an application to the Cour de Cassation for revision. The Commission were divided in opinion, and the matter would have fallen to the ground if the Cabinet had not decided to take the matter into their own hands and apply to the Court direct. This has now been done; the Court is making preliminary inquiries, and will then decide whether revision in some form may be allowed or a new trial ordered.

"With regard to Colonel Picquart, his public challenge of the documents put forward in the speech of the Minister of War was followed three days afterwards by an order of the Cabinet directing the Minister of War to set the Minister of Justice in motion with a view that he should be criminally prosecuted in a non-military Court for communication of secret documents—the same offence as that for which he had been punished by the Court-martial early in the year by removal from the active list of the army—and M. Leblois was to be prosecuted with him as an accomplice. On the 13th of July Colonel Picquart is put into prison to await his trial, M. Leblois being left at large. The prison was a civil prison, where he was allowed to communicate with his legal advisor. … On September 21 Colonel Picquart is taken from his prison to the Court for his trial. The Government Prosecutor rises and asks for an indefinite postponement on the ground that the military authorities are about to bring him before a military Court for forgery. … The military prosecution for forgery was ordered, and on the strength of it the Correctional Court acceded to the application for indefinite postponement of the other case of which it was seised; the military authorities claimed to take the prisoner out of the hands of the Civil authorities, and the Correctional Court acquiesced. Then it was that Colonel Picquart broke out—'This, perhaps, is the last time my voice will be heard in public. It will be easy for me to justify myself as to the petit-bleu. I shall perhaps spend to-night in the Cherche-Midi (military) Prison, but I am anxious to say if I find in my cell the noose of Lemercier-Picard, or the razor of Henry, it will be an assassination. I have no intention of committing suicide.' The same or the next day Colonel Picquart was removed to the Cherche-Midi Prison, there to await his Court-martial, which is not expected yet for some weeks. He is not permitted to communicate with his legal advisor or anyone else."

_G. Lushington, The Dreyfus Case (London Times, October 13, 1898)._

{232}

Late in October (1898) the Court of Cassation decided that it found ground for proceeding to a supplementary investigation in the case of Captain Dreyfus, but not for the suspension meantime of the punishment be was undergoing. On the 15th of November it decided that the prisoner should be informed by telegraph of the pending revision proceedings, in order that he might prepare his defense. The Court was now endeavoring to secure possession of the secret documents (known as the "Dreyfus dossier") on which the conviction of the accused was said to have been really founded. For some time the war office seemed determined to withhold them; but at length, late in December, the dossier was turned over, under pledges of strict secrecy as to the documents contained. Showing still further a disposition to check the doings of the military authorities, the Court of Cassation, in December, ordered a suspension of proceedings in the military court against Colonel Picquart, and demanded all documents in his case for examination by itself.

Attacks were now made on the Court which had thus ventured to interfere with the secret doings of the army chiefs. Suddenly, on the 8th of January (1899), the president of the civil section of the Court, M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire, resigned his office and denounced his recent colleagues as being in a conspiracy to acquit Dreyfus and dishonor the army. This, of course, was calculated to stimulate anti-Dreyfus excitement and furnish ground for challenging the final decision of the Court, if it should be favorable to a new trial for the imprisoned Captain. It also delayed proceedings in the case, leading to the enactment of a law requiring all cases of revision to be tried by the united sections of the Court of Cassation. This act took the Dreyfus case from the 16 judges of the criminal section and committed it to the whole 48 judges of the Court.

Major Esterhazy had taken refuge in England. On the 2d of June he went to the office of the London "Chronicle" and made the following confession for publication: "The chiefs of the army have disgracefully abandoned me. My cup is full, and I shall speak out. Yes, it was I who wrote the bordereau. I wrote it upon orders received from Sandherr. They (the chiefs of the general staff) will lie, as they know how to lie; but I have them fast. I have proofs that they knew the whole thing and share the responsibility with me, and I will produce the proofs." Immediately it was said that he had been bribed by the friends of Dreyfus to take the crime upon himself.

On the day following this confession, the decision of the Court of Cassation was announced. Meantime, the newspaper "Figaro" had, by some means, been able to obtain and publish the testimony which the Court had taken with closed doors, and had thus revealed the flimsiness and the contradictoriness of the grounds on which the officers of the Army Staff based their strenuous assertions that they had positive knowledge of the guilt of Dreyfus. This had great influence in preparing the public mind for the decision of the Court when announced. On grounds relating to the bordereau, to the document which contained the expression "ce canaille de D.," and to the alleged confession of Dreyfus,—leaving aside all other questions of evidence,—the judgment as delivered declared that "the court quashes and annuls the judgment of condemnation pronounced on December 22, 1894, against Alfred Dreyfus by the first court-martial of the Military Government of Paris, and remits the accused to the court-martial of Rennes, named by special deliberation in council chamber, to be tried on the following question:—Is Dreyfus guilty of having in 1894 instigated machinations or held dealings with a foreign power or one of its agents in order to incite it to commit hostilities or undertake war against France by furnishing it with the notes and documents enumerated in the bordereau? and orders the prescribed judgment to be printed and transcribed on the registers of the first court-martial of the Military Government of Paris in the margin of the decision annulled." Captain Dreyfus was taken immediately from his prison on Devil's Island and brought by a French cruiser to France, landing at Quiberon on the 1st of July and being taken to Rennes, where arrangements for the new military trial were being made.

The new court-martial trial began at Rennes on the 7th of August. When it had proceeded for a week, and had reached what appeared to be a critical point—the opening of a cross-examination of General Mercier by the counsel for Dreyfus—M. Labori, the leading counsel for the defense, was shot as he walked the street, by a would-be assassin who escaped. Fortunately, the wound he received only disabled him for some days, and deprived the accused of his presence and his powerful service in the court at a highly important time. The trial, which lasted beyond a month, was a keen disappointment in every respect. It probed none of the sinister secrets that are surely hidden somewhere in the black depths of the extraordinary case. In the judgment of all unimpassioned watchers of its proceeding, it disclosed no proof of guilt in Dreyfus. On the other hand, it gave no opportunity for his innocence to be distinctly shown. Apparently, there was no way in which the negative of his non-guiltiness could be proved except by testimony from the foreign agents with whom he was accused of having treasonable dealings: but that testimony was barred out by the court, though the German and Italian governments gave permission to the counsel for Dreyfus to have it taken by commission. Outside of France, at least, the public verdict may be said to have been unanimous, that the whole case against Captain Dreyfus, as set forth by the heads of the French army, in plain combination against him, was foul with forgeries, lies, contradictions and puerilities, and that nothing to justify his condemnation had been shown. But the military court, on the 9th of September, by a vote of five judges against two, brought in a verdict of Guilty, with "extenuating circumstances" (as though any circumstances could extenuate the guilt of an actual crime like that of which Dreyfus was accused), and sentenced him to imprisonment in a fortress for ten years, from which term the years of his past imprisonment would be taken out. {233} Mr. G. W. Steevens, the English newspaper correspondent, who attended the trial and has written the best account of it, makes the following comment on the verdict, which sums up all that needs to be said: "In a way, the most remarkable feature about the verdict of Rennes was the proportion of the votes. When it had been over a few hours, and numb brains had relaxed to thought again, it struck somebody that on the very first day the very first motion had been carried by five to two. The next and next and all of them had been carried by five to two. Now Dreyfus was condemned by five to two. The idea—the staggering idea—dropped like a stone into the mind, and spread in widening circles till it filled it with conviction. Everyone of the judges had made up his mind before a single word of evidence had been heard. The twenty-seven days, the hundred-and-something witnesses, the baskets of documents, the seas of sweat and tears—they were all utterly wasted. … The verdict was, naturally, received with a howl of indignation, and to endeavour to extenuate the stupid prejudice—that at least, if not cowardly dishonesty—of the five who voted against the evidence is not likely to be popular with civilized readers. Yet it may be said of them in extenuation—if it is any extenuation—that they only did as almost any other five Frenchmen would have done in their place. Frenchmen are hypnotized by the case of Dreyfus, as some people are hypnotized by religion; in its presence they lose all mental power and moral sense." The army chiefs had had their way; the stain of their condemnation had been kept upon Dreyfus; but the government of France was magnanimous enough to punish him no more. His sentence was remitted by the President, and he was set free, a broken man.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898. State of the French Protectorate of Tunis.

See (in this volume) TUNIS: A. D. 1881-1898.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (April). Lease of Kwangchow Wan from China. Railway and other concessions exacted.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (April-December). In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (May). Demands on China consequent on the murder of a missionary.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (MAY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (May-November). General Elections. Fall of the Ministry of M. Meline. Brief Ministry of M. Brisson, struggling with the Dreyfus question. Coalition Cabinet of M. Dupuy.

General elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were held throughout France on Sunday, May 8, with a second balloting on Sunday, May 22, in constituencies where the first had resulted in no choice. Of the 584 seats to be filled, the Progressive Republicans secured only 225, so that the Ministry of M. Méline could count with no certainty on the support of a majority in the Chamber. It was brought to a downfall in the following month by a motion made by M. Bourgeois, in the following words: "The Chamber determines to support only a Ministry relying exclusively on a Republican majority." This was carried by a majority of about fifty votes, and on the next day the Ministry resigned. It was succeeded by a Radical cabinet, under M. Henri Brisson, after several unsuccessful attempts to form a Conservative government. By announcing that it would not attempt to carry out a Radical programme in some important particulars, the Brisson Ministry secured enough support to maintain its ground for a time; but there were fatal differences in its ranks on the burning Dreyfus question, as well as on other points. M. Cavaignac, Minister of War, was bitterly opposed to a revision of the Dreyfus ease, which the Premier and M. Bourgeois (now Minister of Public Instruction) were understood to favor. M. Cavaignac soon placed himself in an extremely embarrassing position by reading to the Chamber certain documents which he put forward as absolute proofs of the guilt of Dreyfus, but of which one was shown presently to have been forged, while another had no relation to the case. He accordingly resigned (September 4), and General Zurlinden took his place. But Zurlinden, too, resigned a few days later, when a determination to revise the trial of Dreyfus was reached. The government was then exposed to a new outburst of fury in the anti-Dreyfus factions, and all the enemies of the Republic became active in new intrigues. The Orleanists bestirred themselves with fresh hopes, and the old Boulangist conspirators revived their so-called Patriotic League, with M. Déroulède at its head. At the same time dangerous labor disturbances occurred in Paris, threatening a complete paralysis of railway communications as well as of the industries of the capital. The Ministry faced its many difficulties with much resolution; but it failed of support in the Chamber, when that body met in October, and it resigned. A coalition cabinet was then formed, with M. Charles Dupuy in the presidency of the council, and M. de Freycinet as Minister of War.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (June). The Sugar Conference at Brussels.

See (in this volume) SUGAR BOUNTIES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (September-November). The Nile question with England. Marchand's expedition at Fashoda.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1898 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899. Demands upon China for attacks on Missions in Szechuan.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899 (JUNE-JANUARY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899. Demand on China for extension of settlement at Shanghai.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1898-1899 (June-June). Convention with England defining possessions in West and North Africa. The great Empire in the Sudan and Sahara.

See (in this volume) NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (February-June). Death of President Faure. Election of President Loubet. Revolutionary attempts of "Nationalist" agitators. The Ministry of M. Waldeck-Rousseau.

Felix Faure, President of the French Republic, died suddenly on the 16th of February,—a victim, it is believed, of the excitements and anxieties of the Dreyfus affair. The situation thus produced was so sobering in its effect that the Republican factions were generally drawn together for the moment, and acted promptly in filling the vacant executive. {234} The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies were convened in joint session, as a National Assembly, at Versailles, on the 18th, and Emile Loubet, then President of the Senate, was chosen to the presidency of the Republic on its first ballot, by 483 votes, against 279 for M. Meline, and 45 for M. Cavaignac. At the funeral of the late President Faure, which occurred on the 23d, the pestilential Déroulède and his fellow mischief-makers, with their so-called "League of Patriots," "League de Patrie Française," and party of "Nationalists," attempted to excite the troops to revolt, but without success. Déroulède and others were arrested for this treasonable attempt. During some months the enemies of the Republic were active and violent in hostility to President Loubet, and the cabinet which he inherited from his predecessor was believed to lack loyalty to him. On the 4th of June, while attending the steeple-chase races at Auteuil, he was grossly insulted, and even struck with a cane, by a party of young royalists, the leader of whom, Count Christiani, who struck the shameful blow, was sentenced afterwards to imprisonment for four years. The Ministry of the day was considered to be responsible for these disorders, and, on the 12th of June, a resolution was passed in the Chamber to the effect that it would support only a government that was determined to defend republican institutions with energy and preserve public order. Thereupon the Ministry of M. Dupuy resigned, and a new cabinet was formed with much difficulty by M. Waldeck-Rousseau. It included a radical Socialist, M. Millerand, who became Minister of Commerce, and a resolute and honest soldier, the Marquis de Gallifet, as Minister of War. The latter promptly cleared the way for more independent action in the government, by removing several troublesome generals from important commands. The new Ministry assumed the name of the "Government of Republican Defense," and offered a front to the enemies of the Republic which plainly checked their attacks. M. Déroulède and some of his fellow conspirators were brought to trial before the Court of Assizes, and acquitted.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (May). New Convention with Siam.

See (in this volume) SIAM: A. D. 1896-1899.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (May-July). Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (July). Reciprocity Treaty with the United States.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899-1901.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (December). Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial policy in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1899-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).

FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1900 (August-January). Arrest and trial of revolutionary conspirators.

In August, 1899, the government, having obtained good evidence that treasonable plans for the overthrow of the Republic had been under organization for several months, in the various royalist, anti-Semitic, and so-called "Patriotic" leagues, caused the arrest of a number of the leaders implicated, the irrepressible Paul Déroulède being conspicuous among them. The president of the Anti-Semitic League, M. Guérin, with a number of his associates, barricaded themselves at the headquarters of the League and defied arrest, evidently expecting a mob rising in Paris if they were attacked. Serious rioting did occur on the 20th of August; but the government prudently allowed Guérin and his party to hold their citadel until the ending of the excitements of the Dreyfus trial; then, on the showing of a serious determination to take it by force, they gave themselves up. The trial of the conspirators was begun in September, before the Senate, sitting as a high court of Justice, and continued at intervals until the following January. Déroulède conducted himself with characteristic insolence, and received two sentences of imprisonment, one for three months and the other for two years, on account of outrageous attacks on the Senate and on the President of the Republic. These were additional to a final sentence to ten years of banishment for his treasonable plotting, which he shared with one fellow conspirator. Guérin was condemned to ten years imprisonment in a fortified place. The remainder of the accused were discharged with the exception of one who had escaped arrest, and who was convicted in his absence. The trial, wrote the Paris correspondent of the "London Times," "showed how strange a thing was this motley conspiracy between men who had but one common bond of sympathy, namely, the desire to upset the Republic,—men from whom the Bonapartist, another variety of anti-Republican conspirators, had held aloof. The latter fancied themselves sufficiently represented in the conspiracy by the plebiscitary party [of Déroulède] whose accession to office would have been tantamount to the success of Imperialism. … The condemnation of these conspirators of varied aspirations proved that the Nationalist party was a mere conglomeration of ambitions which would end in every form of violence if ever the conspirators were called upon to share the booty. The harm that they have already done, even before they have made themselves masters of France, shows that the danger which they constitute to their country is infinitely greater than the danger with which it was menaced by Boulangism, for then at least at the moment of victory all the ambitions would have been concentrated round a single will, however mediocre that will, and General Boulanger would at all events have been a rallying flag for the conspirators visible all over France. The Nationalism condemned by the Court in its various personifications has not even a head around which at the moment of action the accomplices could be grouped. It is confusion worse confounded. If it succeeded in its aims it could only avoid at home the consequences of its incoherent policy by some desperate enterprise abroad. The judgment of the High Court, by restoring tranquillity in the streets, preserved France from the dangers towards which she was hastening, and which were increased, consciously or unconsciously, by auxiliaries at the head of the executive office. But owing to the verdict of the High Court France had time to pull herself together, to breathe more easily, and to take the necessary resolutions to secure tranquillity. The approach of the Exhibition imposed upon everyone a kind of truce, and M. Déroulède himself, with an imprudence of which he is still feeling the consequences, declared that he would return to France when once the Exhibition was over."

{235}

In a speech which he made subsequently, at San Sebastian, his place of exile, Déroulède declared that the "coup d'état" prepared by his party of revolutionists for the 23d of February, 1899, on the occasion of the funeral of President Faure (see above), was frustrated because he refused, at the last moment, to permit it to be used in the interest of the Duke of Orleans. "The following day," he said, "between midday and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, a mysterious hand had upset all the preparations made, the position of the troops, their dislocation, their order and the officers commanding them, and the same evening Marcel Habert and myself were arrested." The intimation of his speech seemed to be that the hand in the government which changed the position of the troops and upset the revolutionary plot would not have done so if the royalists had been taken into it.

Soon after the conclusion of the conspiracy trials, the superior and eleven monks of the Order of the Assumptionist Fathers, who had appeared to be mixed up in the plot, were brought to account as an illegal association, and their society was dissolved.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1901. The Newfoundland French Shore question.

See (in this volume) NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900. Military and naval expenditure.

See (in this volume) WAR BUDGETS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900. Naval strength.

See (in this volume) NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (January). Elections to the Senate.

Elections to the French Senate, on the 28th of January, returned 61 Republicans, 6 Liberal Republicans, 18 Radicals, 7 Socialists, 4 Monarchists, and 3 Nationalists. "The Radicals are as they were. The Socialists have just gained an entrance to the Senate, and to this they were entitled by the large and solid Socialist vote throughout France. The great mass of solid and sensible Republicans have not only held their ground, but have increased and solidified their position. The reactionaries, whether avowed Monarchists, or supporters of the Déroulède movement, have made one or two merely formal gains, but have really fallen back, from the point of view of their pretensions, and the long list of candidates they put forward. On the whole, we may fairly say that the solid, sober Republican vote of France has proved that it is in the ascendant. Once more, in a deeper sense than he meant, the verdict of M. Thiers has, for the moment at any rate, been verified,—that France is really at bottom Left Centre. That is to say, the nation is for progress, but for progress divested of vague revolutionary pretensions, of mere a priori dogmas as to what Republican progress involves. In the main the nation seems to have supported the Government in repelling the aggressive attacks of unbridled Clericalism, and in rejecting the pretensions of the Army to dictate French politics. On the other hand, the mass of the French electors do not desire a crusade against the Roman Catholic Church, and they do not care for an indiscriminate attack on the French Army."

_The Spectator (London), February 3, 1900._

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (January-March). The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (April-November). The Paris Exposition.

The Paris Exposition of 1900, which exceeded all previous "world's fairs" in extent and in the multitude of its visitors, was formally opened on the 14th of April, but with unfinished preparations, and closed on the 12th of November. The reported attendance during the whole period of the Exposition was 48,130,301, being very nearly double the attendance at the Exposition of 1889. The total receipts of money were 114,456,213 francs, and total expenditures 116,500,000 francs, leaving a deficit of 2,044,787 francs. But France and Paris are thought to have profited greatly, notwithstanding. Forty countries besides France took part in the preparations and were officially represented. The number of exhibitors was 75,531; the awards distributed were 42,790 in number. The buildings erected for the Exposition numbered more than 200, including 36 official pavilions erected by foreign governments. The ground occupied extended on each side of the Seine for a distance of nearly two miles, comprising, besides the quays on each side of the river, the Champ de Mars, the Esplanade des Invalides, the Trocadero Gardens, and part of the Champs Elysées.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (June-December). Co-operation with the Powers in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (August). Annexation of the Austral Islands.

See (in this volume) AUSTRAL ISLANDS.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (September). The centenary of the Proclamation of the French Republic. A gigantic banquet.

On the 22d of September, the centenary of the proclamation of the French Republic was celebrated in Paris by a gigantic banquet given by President Loubet, accompanied by his Ministers, to the assembled Mayors of France, gathered from near and far. Some 23,000 guests sat down to the déjeuner, for which a temporary structure had been prepared in the Tuileries Gardens. It was a triumphant demonstration of the culinary resources of Paris; but it had more important objects. It was a political demonstration, organized by the President of the Republic, in concert with the Cabinet of M. Waldeck-Rousseau, as a check to certain schemes of the Paris Nationalists, against the government. It brought the municipal representatives of the provinces to the capital to show the array of their feeling for the Republic against that of the noisy demagogues of the capital. It was a striking success.

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (October). Proposal of terms for negotiation with the Chinese government.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (December). The Amnesty Bill.

With the object of making it impossible for the enemies of the Republic to find such opportunity for a revival of the dangerous Dreyfus controversy as any new trial of its issues would give them, the French government, in December, accomplished the passage of an amnesty bill, which purges everybody connected with the affair, so far as legal proceedings are concerned. The measure was strenuously opposed by the friends of Dreyfus, Picquart and Zola, none of whom are willing to be left unvindicated by law, nor willing to be barred from future proceedings against some of the army staff. It was also fought by the mischievous factions which wish to keep the Dreyfus quarrel alive for purposes of disorderly excitement. {236} The policy of the measure, from the governmental standpoint, was thus described at the time it was pending: The Cabinet "felt that this affair had done great injury to France, that it was a dangerous weapon in the hands of all the conspirators against the Republic, that no Court-martial would agree to acquit Dreyfus, even though convinced of his innocence, and that, in view of the futility of any attempt to secure an acquittal, it was necessary to avoid danger to the Republic by reopening the affair. France had already suffered irreparable mischief from it. … The affair has falsified the judgment and opinion of the army, so that it has no longer a clear notion of its duty at home. In external affairs it is still always ready to march to the defence of the country, but as to its duties at home it is in a state of deplorable confusion. … Considering that the Dreyfus affair has so armed the adversaries of the Government that it cannot be sure of the army in internal matters, the Cabinet, it is evident, could not allow that affair to remain open and produce anarchy. On the other hand, there was a prosecution pending against M. Zola, who, it was clearly proved to all, was right in his famous letter 'J'accuse.' There was a prosecution against Colonel Picquart, who had sacrificed a brilliant future in the defence of truth against falsehood. There was likewise a prosecution against M. Joseph Reinach, who had accused Henry of having been a traitor or the accomplice of a traitor. I do not know how far Dr. Reinach had proofs of his allegations, but these three prosecutions were so closely connected with the Dreyfus case that, if they had been allowed to go on, that affair, which was so dangerous to tranquillity, security, and order, would be reopened. Now the Government will not at any cost allow the affair to be reopened. The whole Amnesty Bill hinges on this question. The Government agrees to amnesty everybody except the persons condemned by the High Court, and who continue to defy it. … It insists on these three prosecutions being struck off the rolls of the Tribunals. This is the whole question. Nothing else in the eyes of the Government is essential, but it will not allow the further serious mischief which would result from the reopening of the affair. The Bill will not stop the civil proceedings against MM. Zola, Picquart, and Reinach, but such proceedings do not cause the same excitement as criminal prosecutions. If the latter are stopped, the dangers occasioned by the confusion in the spirit of the army will disappear, and it may then be hoped that the excitement will calm down."

M. Zola protested vigorously against the Amnesty Bill, and, on its passage, wrote an open letter to the President in which he said: "I shall not cease repeating that the affair cannot cease as long as France does not know and repair the injustice. I said that the fourth act was played at Rennes and that there would have to be a fifth act. Anxiety remains in my heart. The people of France always forget that the Kaiser is in possession of the truth, which he may throw in our face when the hour strikes. Perhaps he has already chosen his time. This would be the horrible fifth act which I have always dreaded. The French Government should not for one hour accept such a terrible contingency."

FRANCE: A. D. 1900 (December). Award in the arbitration of French Guiana boundary dispute with Brazil.

See (in this volume) BRAZIL: A. D. 1900.

FRANCE: A. D. 1901. The Bill on Associations. A measure to place the Religious Orders under strict regulations of law, and to limit their possession of property.

In a speech delivered at Toulouse on the 28th of October, 1900, the French Prime Minister, M. Waldeck-Rousseau, announced the intention of the government to bring forward, at the next session of the Chambers, a measure of critical importance and remarkable boldness, being no less than the project of a law (called in general terms a "Bill on Associations ) for the stringent regulation and restriction of the religious orders in France,—especially for the restriction of their acquisition and ownership of property. Forecasting the measure in that speech, he said: "The question is the rendering free, and subject only to the common law, all the associations which are in themselves lawful as regards the safety of the State. Another object of the same Bill is to cope with the peril which arises from the continuous development in a Democratic society of an organism which, according to a famous definition, the merit of which is due to our old Parliaments, 'tends to introduce into the State under the specious veil of a religions institution a political corporation the object of which is to arrive first at complete independence and then at the usurpation of all authority.' I am filled with no sectarian spirit, but merely with the spirit which dominated as well the policy of the Revolution as the entire historical policy of France. The fundamental statute determining the relations between the churches and the State should be exactly applied so long as it has not been altered, and we have always interpreted its spirit with the broadest tolerance. But as things are now going, what will remain of this pact of reciprocal guarantees? It had been exclusively confined to the secular clergy owing hierarchic obedience to their superiors and to the State and to questions of worship, the preparation for ecclesiastical functions and preaching in the churches. And, now, lo and behold, we find religious orders teaching in the seminaries, the pulpit usurped by the missions, and the Church more and more menaced by the chapel. The dispersed but not suppressed religious communities cover the territory with a close network, which has been evidenced in a recent trial, and have been so bold as to defy the Church dignitaries not accepting their vassalage. In pointing to the peril of increasing mortmain threatening the principle of the free circulation of property, it is sufficient to say that we are influenced by no vain alarms, that the value of the real property occupied or owned by the communities was in 1880 as much as 700,000,000f., and that it now exceeds a milliard. Starting from this figure, what may be the value of mortmain personalty? Yet the real peril does not arise from the extension of mortmain. In this country, whose moral unity has for centuries constituted its strength and greatness, two youths are growing up ignorant of each other until the day when they meet, so unlike as to risk not comprehending one another. Such a fact is explained only by the existence of a power which is no longer even occult and by the constitution in the State of a rival power. All efforts will be fruitless as long as a rational, effective legislation has not superseded a legislation at once illogical, arbitrary, and inoperative. If we attach so much importance to a Law on Association it is also because it involves the solution of at least a portion of the education question. This Bill is the indispensable guarantee of the most necessary prerogatives of modern society."

{237}

This pre-announcement of the intentions of the government gave rise, as it must have been intended to do, to a warm discussion of the project in advance, and showed something of the strength of the antagonists with whom its supporters must make their fight. At length, late in December—a few days before the opening of debate on the bill in the Chambers—the attitude of the Church upon it was fully declared by the Pope, in a lengthy interview which M. Henri des Houx, one of the members of the staff of the "Matin," was permitted to publish in that Paris journal. "After M. Waldeck-Rousseau's Toulouse speech, and in presence of the Associations Bill," said the Pope, "I can no longer keep silent. It is my Apostolic duty to speak out. French Catholics will know that their father does not abandon them, that he suffers with them in their trials, and that he encourages their generous efforts for right and liberty. They are well aware that the Pope has unceasingly laboured in their behalf and for the Church, adapting the means to the utility of the ends. The pilot is the judge of the manœuvre at the bar. At one moment he seems to be tacking before the tempest; at another he is bound to sail full against it. But his one aim ever is to make the port. Now, the Pope cannot consent to allow the French Government to twist the Concordat from its real intent and transform an instrument of peace and justice into one of war and oppression. The Concordat [see, in volume 2, FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804] established and regulated in France the exercise of Catholic worship and defined, between the Church and the French State, mutual rights and duties. The religious communities form an integral part of the Apostolic Church as much as the secular clergy. They exercise a special and a different mission, but one not less sacred than that of the pastors recognized by the State. To try to destroy them is to deal a blow at the Church, to mutilate it, and to restrain its benefits. Such was not the intent of the Concordat. It would be a misconstruction of this treaty to declare illegal and to interdict whatever it was not able to settle or foresee. The Concordat is silent as to religious communities. This means that the regular clergy has no share in the special rights and relative privileges granted by the Concordat to the members of the secular ecclesiastical hierarchy. It does not mean that religious orders are to be excluded from the common law and put outside the pale of the State. … There was no need of mentioning the religious communities in the Concordat because these pious bodies were permitted to live under the shelter of the equal rights accorded to men and citizens by the fundamental clauses of your Constitution. But if an exception is to be made to these solemn declarations in the case of certain citizens it is an iniquity towards the Church, an infraction of the intentions of the negotiators of 1801. Look at the countries with which the Holy See has signed no Concordat, and even at Protestant countries like England, the United States, and many another. Are religious communities there excluded from the liberties recognized as belonging to other citizens? Do they not live there without being harassed? And thither, perhaps, these communities would take refuge, as in the evil days of the Terror, from the iniquity of Catholic France! But since then France has become bound by the Concordat, and she seems to forget it. …

"Why does France figure to-day by the side of the great nations in the concert of the Powers settling the Chinese question? Whence have your Ministry for Foreign Affairs and your representative in Peking the authority which gives weight to their opinion in the assembly of plenipotentiaries? What interest have you in the north of China? Are you at the head there in trade and industry? Have you many traders there to protect? No. But you are there the noblest champions of Christian civilization, the protectors of the Catholic missions. Your foreign rivals are envious of this privileged situation. They are seeking to dispute your rights laid down in treaties that assign to you the rôle of defenders of native missions and Christian settlements. … Hitherto your Governments had had a better notion of the importance of their rights. It is in the name of treaties guaranteeing them that they protested to me when the Chinese Emperor asked me to arrange diplomatic relations directly with the Holy See. Upon the insistence of M. de Freycinet, the then Minister, I refused, so fearful was I that France might believe, even wrongfully, that I wished in any way to diminish her prestige, her influence, and her power. In the Levant, at Constantinople, in Syria, in the Lebanon, what will remain of the eminent position held by your Ambassador and Consuls if France intends to renounce representing there the rights of Christianity? …

"M. Waldeck-Rousseau, in his Toulouse speech, spoke of the moral unity of France. Who has laboured more than I for it? Have I not energetically counselled Catholics to cease all conflict against the institutions which your country has freely chosen and to which it remains attached? Have I not urged Catholics to serve the Republic instead of combating it? I have encountered warm resistance among them, but I believe that their present weakness arises from their very lack of union and their imperfect deference to my advice. The Republican Government at least knows in what degree my authority has been effective towards bringing about that public peace and moral unity which is proclaimed at the very moment when it is seriously menaced. It has more than once thanked me. If the Pontifical authority has not been able entirely to accomplish the union so much desired I at least have spared no effort for it. Is there now a desire to reconstitute the union of Catholics against the Republic? How could I prevent this if, instead of the Republic liberal, equitable, open to all, to which I have invited Catholics to rally, there was substituted a narrow, sectarian Republic, governed by an inflamed faction governed by laws of exception and spoliation, repugnant to all honest and upright consciences, and to the traditional generosity of France? Is it thought that such a Republic can obtain the respect of a single Catholic and the benediction of the Supreme Pontiff? I still hope that France will spare herself such crises, and that her Government will not renounce the services which I have been able to render and can still render it. {238} On several occasions, for instance, and quite recently, I have been asked by the head of a powerful State to allow disregard of the rights of France in the East and Far East. Although compensations were offered to the Church and the Holy See, I resolved that the right of France should remain intact, because it is an unquestionable right, which France has not allowed to become obsolete. But if in your country the religious orders, without which no Catholic expansion is possible, are ruined and suppressed, what shall I answer whenever such requests are renewed to me? Will the Pope be alone in defending privileges the possessors of which prize them so little?"

Of the seriousness of the conflict thus opening between the French Republicans and the Roman Catholic Church there could be no doubt.

The threatened bill was brought forward by the government and debate upon it opened on the 15th of January, 1901. The most stringent clauses of the measure were translated and communicated to the "London Times" by its Paris correspondent, as follows:

"II. Any association founded on a cause, or for an illicit end, contrary to the laws, to public order, to good manners, to the national unity, and to the form of the Government of the Republic, is null and void.

"III. Any member of an association which has not been formed for a determined time may withdraw at any term after payment of all dues belonging to the current year, in spite of any clauses to the contrary.

"IV. The founders of any association are bound to publish the covenants of the association. This declaration must be made at the prefecture of the Department or at the sub-prefecture of the district which is the seat of the association. This declaration must reveal the title and object of the association, the place of meeting and the names, professions, and domiciles of the members or of those who are in any way connected with its administration. … The founders, directors, or administrators of an association maintained or reconstituted illegally after the verdict of dissolution will be punished with a fine of from 500f. to 5,000f. and imprisonment ranging from six days to a year. And the same penalty will apply to all persons who shall have favoured the assemblage of the members of the dissolved association by the offer of a meeting place. …

"X. Associations recognized as of public utility may exercise all the rights of civil life not forbidden in their statutes, but they cannot possess or acquire other real estate than that necessary for the object which they have in view. All personal property belonging to an association should be invested in bonds bearing the name of the owner. Such associations can receive gifts and bequests on the conditions defined by Clause 910 of the Civil Code. Real estate included in an act of donation or in testamentary dispositions, which is not necessary for the working of the association, is alienated within the period and after the forms prescribed by the decree authorizing acceptance of the gift, the amount thereby represented becoming a part of the association's funds. Such associations cannot accept a donation of real estate or personal property under the reserve of usufruct for the benefit of the donor.

"XI. Associations between Frenchmen and foreigners cannot be formed without previous authorization by a decree of the Conseil d'Etta. A special law authorizing their formation and determining the conditions of their working is necessary in the case, first of associations between Frenchmen, the seat or management of which is fixed or emanates from beyond the frontiers or is in the hands of foreigners; secondly, in the case of associations whose members live in common. …

"XIV. Associations existing at the moment of the promulgation of the present law and not having previously been authorized or recognized must, within six months, be able to show that they have done all in their power to conform to these regulations."

Discussion of the Bill in the Chamber of Deputies was carried on at intervals during ten weeks, the government defeating nearly every amendment proposed by its opponents, and carrying the measure to its final passage on the 29th of March, by a vote of 303 to 220. Of the passage of the bill by the Senate there seems to be no doubt. After disposing of the Bill on Associations, on the 27th of March, the Chamber adjourned to May 14.

----------FRANCE: End--------

FRANCHISE LAW, The Boer.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1899 (MAY-JUNE); and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

FRANCHISES, Taxation of public,

See (in this volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1899 (MAY).

FRANKLIN, The Canadian district of.

See (in this volume) CANADA: A. D. 1895.

FRANZ JOSEF LAND: Exploration of.

See (in this volume) POLAR EXPLORATION, 1896; 1897; 1898-1899; 1900-; and 1901.

FREE SILVER QUESTION, The.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER); and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).

FREE SPEECH: Restrictions on, in Germany.

See (in this volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1898; and 1900 (OCTOBER 9).

FREE TRADE.

See (in this volume) TARIFF LEGISLATION.

FREE ZONE, The Mexican.

See (in this volume) MEXICAN FREE ZONE.

FRENCH SHORE QUESTION, The Newfoundland.

See (in this volume) NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1899-1901.

FRENCH WEST AFRICA.

See (in this volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1895; and NIGERIA: A. D. 1882-1899.

FRIARS, Spanish, in the Philippines.

See (in this volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1900 (NOVEMBER).

{239}

G.

GALABAT, Battle of.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1885-1896.

GALVESTON: A. D. 1900. The city overwhelmed by wind and waves.

"The southern coast of the United States was visited by a tropical hurricane on September 6-9, the fury of which reached its climax at and near Galveston, Texas, 1:45 A. M., on Sunday, the 9th. Galveston is built upon the east end of a beautiful but low-lying island some thirty miles long and six or seven miles wide at the point of greatest extent, though only a mile or two wide where the city is built. The pressure of the wind upon the waters of the Gulf was so powerful and so continuous that it lifted the waves on the north coast many feet above the ordinary high-tide level, and for a short time the entire city was submerged. … The combined attack of hurricane and tidal-wave produced indescribable horrors—the destruction of property sinking into insignificance when compared with the appalling loss of life. The new census taken in June accredited Galveston with a population of 37,789. The calamity of a few hours seems to have reduced that number by 20 per cent. The loss of life in villages and at isolated points along the coast-line will probably bring the sum total of deaths caused by this fatal storm up to 10,000. The condition of the survivors for two or three days beggars description. The water had quickly receded, and all means of communication had been destroyed, including steamships, railroads, telephone and telegraph lines, and public highways. Practically all food supplies had been destroyed, and the drinking-water supply had been cut off by the breaking of the aqueduct pipes. The tropical climate required the most summary measures for the disposition of the bodies of the dead. Military administration was made necessary, and many ghoulish looters and plunderers were summarily shot, either in the act of robbing the dead or upon evidence of guilt. …

"Relief agencies everywhere set to work promptly to forward food, clothing, and money to the impoverished survivors. Great corporations like the Southern Pacific Railroad made haste to restore their Galveston facilities, and ingenious engineers brought forward suggestions for protection of the city against future inundations. These suggestions embraced such improvements as additional break-waters, jetties, dikes, and the filling in of a portion of the bay, between Galveston and the mainland. The United States Government in recent years has spent $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 in engineering works to deepen the approach to Galveston harbor. The channel, which was formerly only 20 or 21 feet deep across the bar, is now 27 feet deep, and the action of wind and tide between the jetties cuts the passage a little deeper every year. The foreign trade of Galveston, particularly in cotton, has been growing by leaps and bounds."

_American Review of Reviews, October, 1900, page 398._

GARCIA, General: Commanding Cuban forces at Santiago.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).

GENEVA CONVENTION: Adaptation to maritime warfare.

See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.

GEORGE, Henry: Candidacy for Mayor of Greater New York, and death.

See (in this volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1897 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

GERMAN ORIENT SOCIETY: Exploration of the ruins of Babylon.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: GERMAN EXPLORATION.

GERMAN PARTIES, in Austria.

See (in this volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

----------GERMANY: Start--------

GERMANY: A. D. 1891-1899. Recent commercial treaties. Preparations for forthcoming treaties.

"The new customs tariff of July 15, 1879 [see, in volume 4, TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892] exhibited the following characteristics: An increase of the existing duties and the introduction of new protective duties in the interests of industrial and agricultural products. The grain and wood duties, abolished in 1864, were reintroduced, and a new petroleum duty was adopted. Those on coffee, wine, rice, tea, tobacco, cattle, and textiles were raised. Those on iron were restored; and others were placed on many new articles formerly admitted free. In 1885 the tariff was again revised, especially in the direction of trebling the grain and of doubling the wood duties. Those on cattle, brandy, etc., were raised at the same time. The year 1887 saw another general rise of duties. But, on the other hand, some reductions in the tariff for most-favored nations came about in 1883 and in 1889 in consequence of the tariff treaties made with Switzerland and Spain. Other reductions were made by the four tariff treaties of 1891 with Belgium, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Switzerland, and again in 1892 and 1893, when like treaties were respectively made with Servia and Roumania. Increases in some duties took place in 1894 and 1895, such as those on cotton seeds, perfumes, ether, and honey. … In consequence of the higher price, rendered possible at home from the protective duty, the German manufacturer can afford to sell abroad the surplus of his output at a lower price than he could otherwise do. His average profit on his whole output is made up of two parts: Firstly, of a rather high profit on the sales in Germany; and, secondly, of a rather low profit on the sales abroad. The net average profit is, however, only an ordinary one; but the larger total quantity sold (which he could not dispose of without the foreign market, combined with the extra low price of sale abroad) enables him to produce the commodity in the larger quantities at a lower cost of production than he otherwise could if he had only the German market to manufacture for. He thereby obtains abroad, when selling against an Englishman, an indirect advantage from his home protection, which stands him in good stead and is equivalent to a small indirect benefit (which the Englishman has not) on his foreign sales, which is, however, paid for by the German consumer through the higher sale price at home.

{240}

"The customs tariff now in force provides one general or 'autonomous' rate of duty for all countries, from which deviations only exist for such nations as have tariff treaties or treaties containing the most-favored-nation clause. Such deviations are 'treaty' or 'conventional' duties. At the present moment treaties of one kind or another exist with most European powers (excepting Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal) and with the majority of extra-European countries. So that, with few exceptions, the German Empire may now be said to trade with the world on the basis of the lower 'conventional' or 'treaty' tariff. Most of the tariff treaties existing in Europe expired early in 1892, whereupon many countries prepared higher customs tariffs in order to be prepared to grant certain concessions reciprocally when negotiating for the new treaties. Germany, therefore, under the auspices of General Caprivi, set to work to make a series of special tariff treaties with Belgium, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Switzerland, which were all dated December 6, 1891. Later additions of the same class were those with Servia in 1892, with Roumania in 1893, and with Russia in 1894.

"Perhaps almost the greatest benefit conferred upon the country by these seven tariff treaties was the fact of their all being made for a long period of years and not terminable in any event before December 31, 1903. This secured for the mercantile classes the inestimable benefit of a fixed tariff for most of the important commodities of commerce over a long period of time—a very valuable factor in trade, which has in this case greatly assisted the development of commerce. The reductions in Germany granted by these treaties were not great except on imported grains, and those in the various foreign countries were not very considerable either. … The preparations for the negotiation of the new commercial treaties which are to replace those which expire on January 1, 1904, were begun in Germany as early as 1897. Immense trouble has been and is being taken by the Government to obtain thoroughly reliable data on which to work, as they were by no means content merely to elaborate a new tariff on the wide experience already gained from the working of the seven commercial treaties of 1891 to 1893."

_Diplomatic and Consular Reports of the British Government, January, 1899 (quoted in Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States, January, 1899)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1895. The Emperor and the Social Democrats. His violent and autocratic speeches. Failure of the Anti-Revolutionary Bill. Socialist message to France.

At the opening of the winter session of the Reichstag, in December, 1894, the Emperor, speaking in person, declared it to be "necessary to oppose more effectually than hitherto the pernicious conduct of those who attempt to disturb the executive power in the fulfilment of its duty," and announced that a bill to that end, enlarging the penal provisions of law, would be introduced without delay. This was well understood to be aimed at the Social Democrats, against whom the Emperor had been making savagely violent speeches of late. At Potsdam, in addressing some recruits of the Foot Guards, he had gone so far as to say: "You have, my children, sworn allegiance to me. That means that you have given yourselves to me body and soul. You have only one enemy, and that is my enemy. With the present Socialist agitation I may order you,—which God forbid!—to shoot down your brothers, and even your parents, and then you must obey me without a murmur." In view of these fierce threatenings of the Emperor, and the intended legislative attack upon their freedom of political expression and action, six members of the Social Democratic party, instead of quitting the House, as others did, before the customary cheers for his Imperial Majesty were called for, remained silently sitting in their seats. For that behaviour they were not only rebuked by the president of the Reichstag, but a demand for proceedings against them was made by the public prosecutor, at the request of the Imperial Chancellor. The Reichstag valued its own rights too highly to thus gratify the Emperor, and the demand was refused, by a vote of three to one. His Imperial Majesty failed likewise to carry the bill—the Anti-Revolutionary Bill, as it was called—on which he had set his heart, for silencing critical tongues and pens. The measure was opposed so stoutly, in the Reichstag and throughout the Empire, that defeat appeared certain, and in May (1895) it was dropped. The Emperor did not take his defeat quietly. Celebrating the anniversary of the battle of Sedan by a state dinner at the palace, he found the opportunity for a speech in which the Socialists were denounced in the following terms: "A rabble unworthy to bear the name of Germans has dared to revile the German people, has dared to drag into the dust the person of the universally honoured Emperor, which is to us sacred. May the whole people find in themselves the strength to repel these monstrous attacks; if not, I call upon you to resist the treasonable band, to wage a war which will free us from such elements." The Social Democrats replied by despatching the following telegram to the Socialists in Paris: "On the anniversary of the battle of Sedan we send, as a protest against war and chauvinism, our greeting and a clasp of the hand to our French comrades. Hurrah for international solidarity!" Prosecutions followed. The editor of "Vorwärts" got a month's imprisonment for saying the police provoked brawls to make a pretext for interference; Liebknecht, four, for a caustic allusion to the Emperor's declarations against Socialism, and for predicting the collapse of the Empire; and Dr. Forster, three, for lèse-majesté.

GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1899. The Emperor's claim to "Kingship by Divine Right,"

A great sensation was produced in Germany by a speech addressed on September 6, 1894, by the German Emperor to the chief dignitaries and nobles of East Prussia in the Royal Palace at Königsberg. The following are the principal passages of this speech:

"Agriculture has been in a seriously depressed state during the last four years, and it appears to me as though, under this influence, doubts have arisen with regard to the fulfilment of my promises. Nay, it has even been brought home to me, to my profound regret, that my best intentions have been misunderstood and in part disputed by members of the nobility with whom I am in close personal relation. Even the word 'opposition' has reached my ears. {241} Gentlemen, an Opposition of Prussian noblemen, directed against their king, is a monstrosity. Such an Opposition would be justifiable only when the king was known to be at its head. The history of our House teaches us that lesson. How often have my predecessors had to oppose misguided members of a single class on behalf of the whole community! The successor of him who became Sovereign Duke in Prussia in his own right will follow the same path as his great ancestor. The first King of Prussia once said, 'Ex me mea nata corona,' and his great son 'set up his authority as a rocher de bronze.' I, in my turn, like my imperial grandfather, hold my kingship as by the grace of God. … We witnessed an inspiring ceremony the day before yesterday. Before us stands the statue of the Emperor William, the imperial sword uplifted in his right hand, the symbol of law and order. It exhorts us all to other duties, to the serious combating of designs directed against the very basis of our political and social fabric. To you, gentlemen, I address my summons to the fight for religion, morality, and order against the parties of revolution. Even as the ivy winds round the gnarled oak, and, while adorning it with its leaves, protects it when storms are raging through its topmost branches, so does the nobility of Prussia close round my house. May it, and with it the whole nobility of the German nation, become a brilliant example to those sections of the people who still hesitate. Let us enter into this struggle together. Forward with God, and dishonor to him who deserts his king."

Time has wrought no change in these extraordinary ideas of the German Emperor. Speaking at Hamburg, October 19, 1899, on the necessity of strengthening the naval forces of the Empire, in order to afford protection to trade over the sea, he said: "The feeling for these things is only slowly gaining ground in the German fatherland, which, unfortunately, has spent its strength only too much in fruitless factional strife. Germans are only slowly beginning to understand the questions which are important to the whole world. The face of the world has changed greatly during the last few years. What formerly required centuries is now accomplished in a few months. The task of Kaiser and government has consequently grown beyond measure, and a solution will only be possible when the German people renounce party divisions. Standing in serried ranks behind the Kaiser, proud of their great fatherland, and conscious of their real worth, the Germans must watch the development of foreign states. They must make sacrifices for their position as a world power, and, abandoning party spirit, they must stand united behind their prince and emperor." Commenting on this utterance, a recent writer has said: "This ideal of a docile nation led by a triumphant emperor whose intelligence embraces everything throws considerable light on the relations of imperialism to party government and parliamentary institutions. … There are many other expressions of the emperor which indicate an almost medieval conception of his office, a revival of the theory of divine right. The emperor believes that his grandfather, had he lived in the Middle Ages, would have been canonized, and that his tomb would have become a cynosure of pilgrimages from all parts of the world. … In a speech delivered at Coblenz on August 31, 1897, he speaks of the 'kingship by the grace of God, with its grave duties, its tremendous responsibility to the Creator alone, from which no man, no minister, no parliament can release the monarch.'"

GERMANY: A. D. 1895 (June). Opening of the Kaiser Wilhelm Ship Canal.

The opening of the new ship canal (named the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal) between the Baltic and the North Sea was made the occasion of a great celebration, on the 21st of June, in which the navies of Great Britain, Russia, France, Austria and Italy took part, steaming in procession with the German squadron through the canal. It was also made the occasion for an exhibition of the newly-formed alliance between Russia and France, the Russian and French fleets entering the harbor of Kiel together.

See (in this volume), FRANCE: A. D. 1895.

The canal had been eight years in building, the first spadeful of earth in the excavation having been turned by Emperor William I. at Holtenau, near Kiel, on the 3d of June, 1887. The canal is thus described: It is "98.6 kilometers (61.27 miles) in length. It begins at Holtenau, on the Bay of Kiel, and terminates near Brunsbüttel, at the mouth of the River Elbe, thus running clear through the province of Schleswig-Holstein from northeast to southwest. Both openings are provided with huge locks. Near Rendsburg, there is a third lock connecting the canal with the old Eider Canal. The medium water level of the canal will be about equal to the medium water level of Kiel harbor. At the lowest tide the profile of the canal has, in a depth of 6.17 meters (20 feet 6 inches) below the surface of the water, a navigable width of 36 meters (118.11 feet), so as to allow the largest Baltic steamers to pass each other. For the navy, 22 meters (72.18 feet) of canal bottom are provided, at least 58 meters (190.29 feet) of water surface, and 8½ meters (27 feet 9 inches) depth of water. The greatest depth for merchant vessels was calculated at 6.5 meters (21 feet 3 inches). The estimated cost was $37,128,000. Two-thirds of the cost is defrayed by Germany; the remaining one-third by Russia. The time saved by a steam-ship sailing from Kiel to Hamburg via the canal, instead of through the Skaugh (the strait between Jutland and Sweden), is estimated at 2, days. The time of passage through the canal, including stoppages and delays, will be about thirteen hours. In time of peace, the canal is to be open to men-of-war, as well as merchant vessels of every nation, but in time of war, its use will be restricted to vessels of the German navy. Many vessels have been wrecked and many lives lost on the Danish and Swedish coasts, in waters which need not be navigated after the canal is opened to traffic. Its strategic importance to Germany will also be great, as it will place that country's two naval ports, Kiel on the Baltic, and Wilhelmshafen on the North Sea, within easy access of each other."

_United States Consular Report, Number 175, page 603._

{242}

GERMANY: A. D. 1895 (June-December). Census of the Empire and census of Prussia.

"The results of the last census of the German Empire (the census being taken every five years in December) … have produced some surprise in that, notwithstanding the alleged depression of agriculture and manufactures, the tables show an increase greater than any census since the formation of the Empire. The population, according to the official figures, is 52,244,503, an increase since December, 1890, of 2,816,027, or 1.14 per cent increase per year. The percentages of the previous censuses was: In 1871-1875. 1 per cent; 1875-1880, 1.14 per cent; 1880-1895, 0.7 per cent; 1885-1890, 1.06 per cent. A striking illustration is given by a comparison with the figures of the French census. The increase in France for the same period (1890-1895) was but 124,000, an annual average of 0.07 per cent of its population, and Germans see in this proportionally smaller increase a reason for certain classes in France entertaining a less warlike feeling toward Germany, and thereby assuring general European peace.

"In 1871, at the foundation of the German Empire, its population was 40,997,000. [In 1890, it was 49,428,470.] The percentage of increase differs vastly in northern and southern Germany. In the former, the annual increase was 1.29 per cent; in the latter, only 0.71 per cent. This must be attributed in a great measure to the highly developed mining industries of the Rhineland and Westphalia, where the soil, besides its hidden mineral wealth, is devoted to agriculture. The southern states—Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg—being more mountainous, offer less opportunities for agricultural pursuits and are favored with less natural riches. It is again noticeable that those provinces which are ultra-agrarian show a very favorable increase. It would seem that it is not the peasant, but the great landowner, whose condition is undesirable and that this condition is due less to the present low prices of cereals and the customs-revenue policy of the Government than to the heavily mortgaged estates and lavish style of living which is not in keeping with their revenues. … "The number of marriages, which showed a decrease from the middle of the eighties, has increased since 1892. An unlooked-for increase is shown in the country population."

_United States, Consular Reports, June, 1896, pages. 245-246. _

"Some of the results of the last census of Prussia, taken on the 14th of June, 1895, with special regard to trades and professions, have appeared in an official journal devoted to statistics. … The entire population of Prussia, which includes the provinces wrested from Poland, Denmark, and Saxony, as well as the seized Kingdom of Hanover, counts up for both sexes on the 14th of June, 1895, 31,491,209; by the last census (December 1, 1890), it was 29,955,281, an increase of 1,335,928, or 5.13 per cent. Of males, June 14, 1895, there were 15,475,202; December 1, 1890, 14,702,151, an increase of 773,051; females, June 14, 1895, 16,016,007; December 1, 1890, 15,253,130, an increase of 762,877. The relatively small surplus in Prussia of females over males, viz, 540,805, may … be ascribed in part to the stoppage of emigration to the United States since 1892. This affects more men than women, since men emigrate more readily than women.

"The population of Rhineland is the largest unit in Prussia. This year it is 5,043,979, against 4,710,391 in 1890, an increase of 333,588; that of Silesia is 4,357,555, against 4,224,458 in 1890, an increase of only 133,097, notwithstanding the temporary harvest hands in summer. Posen, its neighbor province, has the lowest increase of all—about 20,000 souls. All parts of Prussia, however, show some increase. The largest increase of population—that of Rhineland or the Rhenish provinces (333,588)—may be safely ascribed to the flourishing manufactures of that district, while the low figures in Posen, Silesia, and East Prussia are due to the depression in agriculture produced by the rivalry of the United States, Argentina, and Australia, as well as by the unprotected state of the laborer in his relations with the landed proprietors.

"One of the surprises of the new census is the small increase of Berlin's population, all the more remarkable owing to the unprecedented increase of Berlin for the years between 1870 and 1890. It is on]y 36,288, or 2.2 per cent for the past four years and a half. By the census of 1895, it was 1,615,082; 1890, 1,578,794; increase, 36,288."

_United States, Consular Reports, January, 1896, pages 75-76._

GERMANY: A. D. 1895-1898. The Agrarian Protectionists and their demands.

"The depression of agriculture in Germany was the subject which most occupied German politicians throughout the year [1895]. The policy favoured by the Agrarian League was that advocated by Count Kanitz, of which the following were the chief points: (1) That the State should buy and sell the foreign grain, flour, and meal destined for consumption in Germany; (2) that the average selling price in Germany from 1850 to 1890 should be fixed as the selling price of grain, and that the price of flour and meal should be determined by the proportion they bear to the unground grain and the said selling price, provided that the buying price is covered thereby; while in the case of higher buying prices, the selling prices must be proportionally raised; (3) that the profit obtained be spent, so that a part at least equal to the amount of the present grain duty flows into the Imperial Treasury; (4) that steps should be taken for the accumulation of stocks to be used in extraordinary time of need, as, for instance, in the event of war; and (5) that a reserve should be formed when prices are higher at home and abroad, to secure the payment of the above-mentioned annual amount to the Treasury. The Emperor, however, repeatedly expressed his disapproval of this policy, and Prince Bismarck is said to have remarked that if he were a deputy he would vote for it, but as Chancellor he would reject it. … The Agrarians now started an agitation all over the country in favour of Count Kanitz's proposal, and even threatened to refuse the supplies required for the navy if the Government should not accept it. In March, the Emperor referred the question to the committee of the Federal State Council, which passed a resolution declaring the proposals of Count Kanitz for establishing a State monopoly in cereals to be incompatible with the correct interpretation of the present position of the State in regard to industry and international trade, and irreconcilable with Germany's commercial treaties."

_Annual Register, 1895, pages 256-257._

{243}

"The agrarian protectionists control the Conservative party in Parliament completely; they are strongly represented in the Center, or Catholic, party, and are not without a considerable following among the National Liberals. The Antisemitic party, the Poles, and other small parties are all infected with the agrarian protectionist ideas. The only decided opponents, as well as the only decided free-traders, are to be found among the three Liberal sections and the Social Democrats. The agrarian protectionists not only wish to annul the commercial treaties, because these hinder them from raising the protective duties on agricultural imports (these duties are by no means low—for instance, 35 marks per ton on rye or wheat), but the extreme members of the party advocate the abolition of the gold standard and the adoption of a so-called bimetallic—in reality a silver-standard. The most rabid among them oppose the cutting of canals, because foreign produce would thus enter Germany on cheaper terms. In short, the agrarian protectionists oppose the natural evolution of all economic progress. …

"The old Prussian feudal aristocracy (Junkerthum), forming the pith and marrow of the agrarian movement, has never been well off; but for the last twenty years they have suffered from the competition with the whole world, which is felt so keenly in all old countries, in the reduction of the rent of land. They have sunk deeper and deeper into debt, while the standard of material comfort has risen throughout all classes in Germany. The 'Junker' has long since given up the hope of making both ends meet by his own industry, and while endeavoring to raise the rent of land by various kinds of protective measures, he is really at the same time struggling for bread-and-butter and upholding a tradition of political supremacy.

"No government can really satisfy these claims, and hence each in turn is compelled, sooner or later, to oppose the agrarian movement. However, considering the strong influence the Prussian 'Junker' exerts in the army, in the ranks of government officials, and at court, practical statesmen deem it advisable to avoid any open rupture with the pack of famished wolves."

_T. Barth, Political Germany (American Review of Reviews, April. 1898)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (January). Emperor William's congratulations to the President of the South African Republic on the defeat of the Jameson Raid.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1896 (JANUARY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (May). The Berlin Industrial Exposition.

See (in this volume) BERLIN INDUSTRIAL EXPOSITION.

GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (May). Sugar bounty and sugar tax legislation.

"The sugar-tax amendment law, over which has been waged in the German Parliament one of the longest and most determined battles of recent years, was finally enacted as a concession to the agrarian interest, and went into effect [May, 1896]. Its influence will be to increase the sugar production of Germany, and, to that extent, exert a depressing effect upon the general market and the interests of producers in other beet-growing countries. The circumstances which have led to the present situation are, briefly, these: From the time when the Prussian Government began the systematic encouragement of the beet-sugar industry down to 1887, the tax on sugar for home consumption was calculated upon the quantity of beets worked up by each separate factory, it being assumed that the quantity of roots required to produce a given weight of sugar would be uniform and invariable. The proportion adopted was 20 units of raw beet root to 1 unit of sugar, which, at the time when the law was enacted: was approximately correct.

"But, under the stimulus of the export bounties provided by the same law, the German beet growers and sugar makers worked hard and intelligently to improve and increase their product. By careful selection and cultivation, the beets were so improved that from 12 to 14 tons of roots would yield a ton of sugar. Great advance was also made in the machinery and processes employed in the sugar factories, so that, as a final result, the German Government, which paid nearly 12 cents per cwt. bounty on all sugar exported, and charged 11 tax of the same amount on all sugar for home consumption that could be made from 20 cwts. of beets, found that the export bounties completely absorbed the revenue derived from the sugar tax. This tendency of the system had become apparent as early as 1869, and an attempt was made at that time to revise the law, but the sugar-producing interest was powerful enough to resist this effort. … Sugar growing still continued to be the most profitable form of culture for German farmers, the area of cultivation and number of sugar factories continued to increase, loud complaints were heard against a system that favored one class of farmers at the expense of the entire population, and, in 1891, the Imperial Diet reduced the sugar export bounty by half, that is, to 29.7 cents per 100 kilograms, and decreed that such bounty should entirely cease on the 31st of July, 1897, provided that, in the meantime, Austria, France, and other bounty-paying countries should likewise reduce their bounties on exported sugar. Several attempts have been made to reach such an international agreement, but without successful result, and under cover of this failure to secure a general reduction or abolition of bounties, the German Agrarians have rallied and secured the adoption of the present law, which restores the export bounty of 1887 (59.5 cents per 220.46 pounds) and raises the tax on sugar for home consumption from 18 marks ($4.28) to 21 marks ($4.99) per 100 kilograms, or about 2.2 cents per pound. This increased tax will, of course, be added to the retail price of sugar, already very high, and tend to still further retard the increase of sugar consumption in Germany, which is now only 28.8 pounds per capita, against. 73.68 pounds per capita in England and 77 pounds in the United States. …

"From the statistics that were brought out in the recent debate, it appears that the whole system of beet culture and sugar manufacture in Germany has reached a higher standard of scientific perfection than has been attained in any other European country. Every step, from the preparation and fertilization of the land to the smallest detail in the factory process, has been reduced as nearly as possible to exact scientific methods. … Statistics were cited to prove that the German sugar producers are safe from all European competition and do not need the protection of an increased export bounty; but nothing could withstand the demand of the Agrarians, and their victory is one of the most significant events in recent German legislation."

_United States Consular Reports, July, 1896, page 512._

See, also, (in this volume) SUGAR BOUNTIES.

GERMANY: A. D. 1897. Industrial combinations. Trusts.

See (in this volume) TRUSTS: IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

{244}

GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (July). Defeat in Prussia of a bill to restrict the right of political association and meeting.

In July, the government in Prussia suffered a significant defeat in the Prussian Landtag on an attempt to give the police new powers for interference with political meetings and associations. The bill was especially aimed at the Social Democrats, enacting in its first clause that "agents of the police authorities have power to dissolve meetings in which anarchist or Social Democratic movements are manifest, having for their object the overthrow of the existing order of state or of society, and finding an expression in a manner which endangers public security, and in particular the security of the state." It passed the upper house overwhelmingly, but was rejected in the lower by 209 votes to 205.

GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (July). British notice to terminate existing commercial treaties.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE-JULY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (September-December). Demand for indemnity enforced against Hayti.

See (in this volume) HAYTI: A. D. 1897.

GERMANY: A. D. 1897 (November-December). Seizure and acquisition of Kiao-chau Bay. Naval expedition to China. Speeches of the Emperor and Prince Henry.

The murder of two German missionaries in Shantung province, China, gave the German government a pretext, in November, 1897, for the seizure of the port of Kiao-chau, on demands for indemnity which were not satisfied until the Chinese government had consented to lease that port, with adjacent territory, to Germany, for 99 years, with extensive rights and privileges in the whole rich province of Shantung.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1897 (NOVEMBER).

To support this opening of an "imperial policy" in the East, a German naval expedition was despatched to China, in December, under the command of the Emperor's brother, Prince Henry, and its departure was made the occasion for speeches by the Emperor and Prince Henry, at a royal banquet, at Kiel, which caused much remark, and some smiling, in Europe and America. Said the Emperor, addressing his brother, at the end of some remarks in a similar strain: "As a sign of imperial and of naval power, the squadron, strengthened by your division, will now have to act in close intercourse and good friendship with all the comrades of the foreign fleets out there, for the protection of our home interests against everybody who tries to injure Germany. That is your vocation and your task. May it be clear to every European out there, to the German merchant, and above all, to the foreigner whose soil we may be on, and with whom we shall have to deal, that the German Michael has planted his shield, adorned with the eagle of the empire, firmly on that soil, in order, once for all, to afford protection to those who apply to him for it. May our countrymen abroad, whether priests or merchants, or of any other calling, be firmly convinced that the protection of the German Empire, as represented by the imperial ships, will be constantly afforded them. Should, however, anyone attempt to affront us, or to infringe our good rights, then strike out with mailed fist, and if God will, weave round your young brow the laurel which nobody in the whole German Empire will begrudge you."

The Prince in reply said: "Most Serene Emperor, most powerful King and Lord, illustrious brother,—As children we grew up together. Later on it was granted to us as men to look into each other's eyes and stand faithfully at each other's side. To your Majesty the imperial crown has come with thorns. I have striven in my restricted sphere and with my scanty strength, as man, soldier, and citizen, to help your Majesty. We have reached a great epoch, an important epoch for the nation—an important epoch for your Majesty and the Navy. Your Majesty has made a great sacrifice, and has shown great favour to myself in entrusting this command to me. I thank your Majesty from the bottom of a loyal, brotherly and humble heart. I well understand your Majesty's feelings. I know what a heavy sacrifice you made in giving me so fine a command. It is for this reason, your Majesty, that I am so much moved, and that I so sincerely thank you. I am further deeply indebted for the confidence which your Majesty reposes in my weak person, and I can assure your Majesty of this—I am not allured by hopes of winning glory or laurels, I am only animated by one desire—to proclaim and preach abroad to all who will hear, as well as to those who will not, the gospel of your Majesty's anointed person. This I will have inscribed on my banner, and will bear it wherever I go. These sentiments with which I set out are shared by my comrades. I raise my glass and call upon those who with me enjoy the happy privilege of being permitted to go forth, to remember this day, to impress the person of the Emperor on their minds, and to let the cry resound far out into the world—Our most Serene, Mighty, Beloved Emperor, King and Master, for ever and ever. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!"

GERMANY: A. D. 1897-1900. Practical operation of the state system of workingwoman's insurance. Enlargement of its provisions.

By a series of laws enacted in 1883, 1884, and 1889, a system of compulsory state insurance of workingmen was established in Germany, applying in the first instance to sickness, then to accidents, and finally becoming a pensioning insurance for old age and permanent invalidity. These laws establish a compulsion to be insured, but leave freedom of choice as to the associations in which the insurance shall be maintained, all such associations being under the surveillance of the state. In a report from United States Consul J. C. Monaghan, Chemnitz, made July, 1898. the practical working of the system to that time is thus described: "Time is proving the practical value of the German workingmen's insurance system. … The social and economic influence of so gigantic a system must be very great.

"The object of the system is to alleviate the sufferings of workmen and their families: (1) In cases of sickness (sick insurance); (2) in cases of accidents incurred at work (accident insurance); (3) in cases of feebleness, wasting diseases, decreased capacity to work, and old age (invalid and old-age insurance). In cases coming under Number 1 there is given free medical treatment; sick money—that is, money during period of sickness with which to obtain medicine, nourishment, etc.—or, if desired, free treatment in a hospital and support for the family; and money, in case of death, is supplied the family. The fund is furnished by employers and employed—the former paying one-third, the latter two-thirds. In cases of accident insurance the parties receive support during convalescence, from the fourteenth week after the accident happens. {245} Money is given the wounded person from the fifth week. Rents are paid from the first day of the fourteenth week after the accident. The rents amount to two-thirds, and in some cases to three-fifths, of the workman's yearly salary. The fund for burial expenses is furnished by the employers. In cases coming under invalid and old-age insurance, the parties receive rents from the time they are unable to work, without regard to age; old-age rents, from the seventieth year, even if they can work and do not draw invalid rent; and assistance against disease so as to prevent incapacity. In case of his death or marriage, the full sum paid by the party is returned.

"The following amounts were paid out in the years given:

Sick Accident Invalid and Old Age insurance insurance insurance Year. 1885-86. $23,905,005 $460,625 — 1887. 13,138,099 1,412,030 — 1888. 14,651,637 2,304,173 — 1889. 16,892,097 3,442,503 — 1890. 20,013,420 4,835,041 — 1891. 21,243,594 6,289,483 $3,643,089 1892. 22,433,499 7,696,967 5,344,742 1893. 24,269,264 9,082,984 6,700,509 1894. 23,702,063 10,539,044 8,312,475 1895. 24,947,731 11,929,940 10,221,647 1896. 26,114,026 13,602,747 12,293,533 1897. 26,207,417 15,252,301 14,161,000

Total. 257,517,856 86,847,842 60,696,997

"During the years from 1885 to 1897 employers had paid in 1,337,741,176 marks ($318,382,399), and workmen 1,173,449,805 marks ($279,281,053), a total of 2,511,190,981 marks ($597,663,452). Of this amount 1,702,184,100 marks ($405,121,816) have been paid out. Thus the workmen have already received 528,700,000 marks ($125,830,600) more than they have paid in. The annual amount paid out is increasing at the rate of 15,000.000 marks ($3,570,000) per annum. The reserve fund at the end of 1897 was, in round numbers, 850,000,000 marks ($202,500,000). For every twentieth person of the Empire's population, one has been paid insurance.

"Besides this system, there are others by which workingmen are aided. There are State and private insurance and pension systems. One alone, the Miners' and Smelters' Union, paid out in the years 1895-1897, inclusive, 320,000,000 marks ($76,160,000). From 1900 on, the annual amount to be paid out will be upwards of 300,000,000 marks ($71,400,000), or 100 marks ($23.80) for every working-day in the year. Whether a system which makes so much for paternalism is one to commend, I can not say. Its effects here have been anything but bad. Poverty, in spite of poor wages, is practically unknown."

_United States Consular Reports, September, 1898, page 51._

A revision of the accident insurance law in 1900 extended the compulsory insurance to laborers in breweries and in the shops of blacksmiths, locksmiths and butchers, and to window cleaners. It raised the amount of assistance provided for the injured in many cases, making it in some instances of permanent, disability equal to the wages previously earned. It also fixed more sharply the responsibility for carelessness on the part of an employer.

GERMANY: A. D. 1898. Lèse-majesté.

"In 1898 there were 246 convictions for 'lèse-majesté,' and the punishments inflicted amounted to a total of 83 years imprisonment, in addition to various terms of confinement in a fortress."

_Annual Register, 1899, page 273._

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (March-December). In the Chinese "Battle of Concessions."

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (April). The new naval policy.

"One of the most important economic movements taking place in Germany is the development of her maritime interests. The mercantile marine and 'over-sea' interests had developed to such an extent that recently the Government obtained the consent of the nation to add largely to its navy. During the year 1897 continuous efforts had been made to bring this question prominently before the public, and to point out the absolute necessity of a large increase of the navy in order to adequately protect Germany's growing maritime interests. The introductory statement of the bill presented to the Reichstag in November gave great prominence to the following considerations of general interest in connection with the new programme, namely, that during the last twenty years the increase of imports and exports, the rapid investment of capital abroad, the acquisition of colonies, the flourishing fisheries, and the rapidly increasing population had greatly added to German 'over-sea' interests, but that at the same time this expansion had brought with it the danger of a conflict with the interests of foreign nations, which must be provided against by an increase of the navy, for any injury to these maritime interests would entail serious consequences on the whole country.

"The bill, as eventually passed on April 10, 1898, provided that the nonrecurring expenditure should not exceed £20,445,000, of which £17,835,000 was to be devoted to the construction of ships and their armaments. The German fleet will then be brought up to a total strength of 17 battle ships of the line, 8 coast-defense vessels, 9 large and 26 small cruisers, besides a variety of torpedo and other small craft. It is thought and hoped that, in consequence of the favorable state of the revenues of the Empire, a total sum of £5,876,274 a year can easily be devoted exclusively to the annual naval budget of the next six years, by which time the additions to the fleet are to be completed."

_United States Bureau of Statistics, Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance, January, 1899._

See, also, (in this volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (JUNE).

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (April). Withdrawal from the blockade of Crete and the "Concert of Europe."

See (in this volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1897-1899.

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (June). Elections to the Imperial Parliament, and their significance.

Elections to the Parliament of the Empire (the Reichstag) took place in June, and resulted in the following distribution of seats:

Conservatives, 52; Imperialists, 22; National Liberals, 48; Liberal Unionists, 12; Liberal Democrats, 29; German Democrats, 8; Social Democrats, 56; Centre (Catholic), 106; Poles, 14; Anti-Semites, 10; Independents, 40; Total, 397.

{246}

"The elections as a whole show the growing power of German manufactures and the decline of German agriculture. Germany has become already, in far less time than it took England, a great urban community. That appears to us the most prominent fact in German life, and it was therefore bound to make itself manifest in German politics. In spite of Imperial patronage, the rural parties have lost. Both the Conservative sections have indeed lost rather heavily; the Conservatives proper standing in the new Reichstag at sixty-two instead of at seventy-two, as in the Reichstag of 1893, and the Free Conservatives at twenty instead of twenty-seven. The losses of the National Liberals, who usually vote solidly with the Conservatives, are smaller, but still they have lost. Though they represent 'Particularism,' yet the Poles are a peasant party, and they have lost, standing as they do at fourteen as compared with nineteen in 1893. The Anti-Semites, who under clerical guidance draw their strength largely from country districts, have also lost. On the other hand, those parties which have gained are the parties which hold the German cities,—the Centre, the Radicals, and the Social Democrats. The Centre, as we have said, represents the nascent Rhenish and Bavarian industrialism, the Radicals have made significant gains in Berlin, and the Social Democrats have gained in nearly all the towns except Berlin, where they have lost seats to the Radicals,—on what ground does not seem clear, unless it is that the more Anarchical section, which has all along been strong in Berlin Socialism, has rebelled against the centralised dictatorship of the party. We imagine that the urban professional and trading classes, dependent for their position on the growth of industry, have mainly voted Radical, and that the working classes have, on the whole, voted Socialist, except in those cases where they have, as devout Catholics, supported the Centre party. It will be seen, therefore, that what we may call Toryism (of an extreme and fanatical type, practically unknown in England), representing rural proprietorial interests, has lost: and that the forces of democracy, whether Liberal of the 'Manchester' type, Socialist, or Catholic, but all representing the growth of industrialism and urban life, have gained. In short, what strikes us as the most obvious moral of the elections is that the old forces and forms of German life are weakening, that the ancient Conservative entrenchments are being destroyed, and that we now have to deal with a modernised Germany.

"It may perhaps be asked why we place the Centre party in the same category with the Radicals and Social Democrats, since the last-named party is avowedly anti-religious, and the Radicals are largely indifferent on the religious question. We reply that the Centre party is essentially a democratic party, and a party, moreover, committed to reforms only less far-reaching than those of the Social Democrats, for whose candidates the Catholic democratic electors have often voted on the second ballots. The Centre party embodies to a large extent the spirit of Bishop Ketteler of Mainz, the chief founder of German Catholic 'Christian Socialism': its organs in the Press are democratic in tone: and so far as the present Pope has advanced in the direction of wide Catholic social reform, he has had no stronger supporters than the members of the German Centre party, with the possible exception of the democratic American Catholic prelates, with whom the Centre party has much in common. This being the case, it is clear that democracy, in some or other of its varied forms, controls a majority of votes in the Reichstag: a small majority, it is true."

_The Spectator (London), July 2, 1898._

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (June). The Sugar Conference at Brussels.

See (in this volume) SUGAR BOUNTIES.

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (July). Death of Prince Bismarck.

Prince Otto van Bismarck, whose importance in German history is comparable only with that of Charlemagne, Luther, and Frederick the Great, died on the 31st of July, at the age of 83. Immediately upon his death his confidential secretary. Dr. Moritz Busch, made public the full text of the letter of resignation which Bismarck addressed to the Emperor, William II., when he withdrew—practically dismissed—from the public service, in 1890. It showed that the immediate cause of his resignation was an order from the new sovereign which repealed an arrangement established by the latter's grandfather, in 1852, whereby a responsible ministry was created in Prussia, through the giving of responsible authority to a prime minister at its head. For nearly half a century that constitutional usage had been maintained. William II. appears to have made his first grasp at absolutism by setting it aside, and thereupon Bismarck resigned, as he was undoubtedly expected to do.

GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (October-November). The Emperor's visit to Palestine.

A journey made by the Emperor and Empress, with a large retinue and considerable state, first to Constantinople, and then to Palestine, in October and November, was suspected of having some other motive than a love of travel and an interest in seeing the Holy Land. Looked at in connection with some other movements, it was supposed to indicate a policy aiming at the establishment of German influence in the realm of the Turk.

GERMANY: A. D. 1899. Complaints from Danish Sleswick.

"It can never be anything but an encroachment and a cruelty to insist, as is now being done in Danish North Sleswick, that all teaching in the schools, with the exception of two miserable hours a week of religious lessons, shall be carried on in German, and to forbid even private instruction in the Danish language. It can never be called anything but brutality and meanness to punish young men who go into Danish territory for the purpose of study by depriving their parents of their parental rights, or by expelling innocent persons from the country. These methods, too, are beside the purpose. The Germans complain that Danes who have become Prussian subjects against their will do not feel like Prussians. They are tortured and annoyed, subjected to the most minute espionage and the most contemptible police reports, with the persecution connected therewith, and then it is considered amazing that they are not changed into enthusiastic admirers of Prussia. … The Danish language, in spite of its small area, is a language of culture. And only the same undue self-admiration which the Germans are in the habit of criticising in the French can look upon the forcible extermination of Danish culture, for the sake of spreading German, as a worthy act, an end that justifies the means. …

{247}

"Some years ago the actors of the Royal Theatre were forbidden to produce some innocent old vaudevilles in Sleswick towns (although permission had already been given to the owner of a theatre in Haderslev; indeed, they were not even allowed to remain over night at an hotel. Intense indignation was roused in Denmark by this narrow-minded police rule, which used as a pretext the danger to the peace and quietness of Germany of a scenic representation in Danish. This, however, was nothing compared with recent events, which, however, will in South Jutland only have a stimulating effect on the self-respect and patriotism of the people; while in Denmark those who have hitherto tried to bring about a better understanding between Danes and Germans will throw up the game, and without superfluous words take their stand on the side of the oppressed. The Danes can and must submit to humiliations, which the stronger nation again and again puts upon the weaker, humiliations which itself would never stand from any other Power. But one thing they cannot do. They cannot give up exerting all their power to preserve their language and culture within the Sleswick territory, which for a thousand years has been Danish, and is so still. They would be miserable creatures if they could. From the Danish side no attempt has been made, nor can be made, to regain politically what has been lost. No political agitation has been undertaken, nor can it be undertaken, to excite the South Jutlanders against the conditions which by ill-fate have once been legally imposed upon them. But the alliance of hearts and minds cannot be broken even by a great Power like Germany.

"How insecure this Prussian rule feels in North Sleswick in spite of its mailed fist! Everything alarms it. It dares not allow Danish actors to play an old vaudeville dating from 1830. It fears the storm of applause which would break loose as soon as the first unimportant, but Danish, words were heard from the stage. It feels obliged to forbid a Danish orator from holding any discourse whatsoever on South Jutland territory. He is not even allowed to speak on literature—not on German literature, not even on Goethe. For one can really never know!—One cannot be sure that the audience, in spite of the subject being of no political significance whatever, though even it be a German national topic, might not seize the opportunity to applaud a speaker from Denmark. And in Heaven's name that must not happen! On such fragile feet of clay does the Prussian Colossus stand in Sleswick that it cannot bear a hand-clap after a Danish lecture on Goethe. Still less can it endure Danish reading-books and Danish song-books in the hands of little children, or Danish colours in a lady's gown or upon a house; Danish songs it fears even behind closed doors. What is the use of gendarmes if not to wage war against colours and songs? Such is the measure of the anxiety of Prussia, equipped with all the instruments of power, as to whether German might, German wealth, German military glory, German science and art, and half a hundred million of German people will exercise so great an attraction on the inhabitants of North Sleswick as the important miniature State which bears the name of Denmark."

_G. Brandes, Denmark and Germany (Contemporary Review, July, 1899)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1899. Foreign interests of the German people.

United States Consul J. C. Monaghan wrote from Chemnitz in 1899:

"German economists are not exaggerating when they say this Empire's people and capital are operating in every part of the world. Not only Hamburg, Bremen, Stettin, Lübeck, and Kiel—i. e., the seaport cities—but towns far inland, have invested millions in foreign enterprises. In the Americas, North and South, in Australia, in Asia, in a large part of Africa, German settlements, German factories, German merchants, and German industrial leaders are at work. Nor is it always in settlements under the Empire's control that this influence is strongest. In Senegambia, on the Gold Coast, the Slave Coast, in Zanzibar and Mozambique, in Australia, Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Tahiti, Sumatra, and South and Central America, there are powerful commercial organizations aiding the Empire. From Vladivostock to Singapore, on the mainland of Asia, and in many of the world's most productive islands, the influence of German money and thrift is felt. In Central America and the West Indies, millions of German money are in the plantations; so, too, in the plantations along the Gold Coast. In Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Trinidad, Venezuela, Brazil, etc., German capital plays a very important part in helping to develop the agricultural and in some cases the manufacturing and commercial interests. A consequence of this development is seen in the numerous banking institutions whose fields of operation show that German commerce is working more and more in foreign parts. These banks look after and aid foreign investment as well as the Empire's other commercial relations. They help the millions of Germans in all parts of the world to carry on trade relations, not only with the Fatherland, but with other countries.

"These are the links in a long and very strong chain of gold uniting the colonies with the Mother Country. Quite recently, large quantities of German capital have been invested in various industries. The Empire's capital in United States railroads is put down at $180,000,000. In America, Germans have undertaken manufacturing. They have used German money to put up breweries, hat factories, spinning, weaving, and paper mills, tanneries, soap-boiling establishments, candle mills, dye houses, mineral-water works, iron foundries, machine shops, dynamite mills, etc. Many of these mills use German machinery, and not a few German help. The Liebig Company, the Chilean saltpeter mines, the Chilean and Peruvian metal mines, many of the mines of South Africa, etc., are in large part controlled by German money and German forces. Two hundred different kinds of foreign bonds or papers are on the Berlin, Hamburg, and Frankfort exchanges. Germany has rapidly risen to a very important place in the financial, industrial, and mercantile world. Will she keep it? Much will depend on her power to push herself on the sea."

_United States Consular Reports, September, 1899, page 127._

{248}

GERMANY: A. D. 1899. Military statistics.

A report presented to the Reichstag showed the total number of men liable for service in 1899, including the surplus from previous years, was 1,696,760. Of these 716,998 were 20 years of age, 486,978 of 21 years, 362,568 of 22 years, and 130,216 of more than 22 years. The whereabouts of 94,224 was unknown, and 97,800 others failed to appear and sent no excuse; 427,586 had already undertaken military duties, 579,429 cases were either adjourned or the men rejected (for physical reasons), 1,245 were excluded from the service, 43,196 were exempt, 112,839 were incorporated in the naval reserve, 226,957 were called upon to join the colors, leaving a surplus of 5,187; there were 23,266 volunteers for the army and 1,222 for the navy. Of the 226,957 who joined the colors 216,880 joined the army as combatants and 4,591 as non-combatants, and 5,486 joined the navy. Of the 5,486 the maritime population furnished 3,132 and the inland 2,354. There were 21,189 men who entered the army before attaining the regulation age, and 1,480 under age who entered the navy; 33,652 of the inland population and only 189 of the maritime were condemned for emigrating without leave; while 14,150 inland and 150 maritime cases were still under consideration at the end of the year.

GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (February). Chinese anti-missionary demonstrations in Shantung.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1899.

GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (February). Purchase of Caroline, Pelew and Marianne Islands from Spain.

See (in this volume) CAROLINE AND MARIANNE ISLANDS.

GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (May-July). Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.

GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (May-August). Advice to the South African Republic.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1899 (MAY-AUGUST).

GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (June). State of German colonies.

The following report on German colonies for the year ending June 30, 1899, was made to the British Foreign Office by one of the secretaries of the Embassy at Berlin:

"The number of Europeans resident in the German African Protectorates, viz., Togoland, Cameroons, South-West Africa, and East Africa, at the time of the issue of the latest colonial reports in the course of 1899 is given as 4,522 men, women, and children, of whom 3,228 were Germans. The expense to the home government of the African colonies, together with Kiao-chao in the Far East, the Caroline and Samoa Islands in the South Seas, and German New Guinea and its dependencies, is estimated at close upon £1,500,000 for 1900, the Imperial Treasury being asked to grant in subsidies a sum nearly double that required last year. Kiao-chao is included for the first time in the Colonial Estimates, and Samoa is a new item. The Imperial subsidy has been increased for each separate Protectorate, with the single exception of the Caroline Islands, which are to be granted £5,000 less than last year. East Africa receives about £33,000 more; the Cameroons, £10,000; South-West Africa, £14,000; Togoland, £800; New Guinea, £10,000; and the new items are: £489,000 for Kiao-chao (formerly included in the Naval Estimates), and £2,500 for Samoa. A Supplementary Vote of £43,265 for the Protectorate troops in the Cameroons is also now before the Budget Committee. …

"Great efforts have been made to encourage German trade with the African colonies, and it is shown that considerable success has been attained in South-West Africa, where the total value of goods imported from Germany amounted to £244,187, as against £181,961 in the previous year, with an appreciable falling-off in the value of imports from other countries. In East Africa the greater part of the import trade still comes from India and Zanzibar—about £450,000 worth of goods out of the gross total of £592,630, having been imported thence. The export trade is also largely carried on through Zanzibar."

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications (Papers by Command: Miscellaneous Series, Number 528, 1900, pages 3-5)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (August). Defeat of the Rhine-Elbe Canal Bill. Resentment of the Emperor. An extraordinary edict.

Among several new canal projects in Germany, those of "the Dortmund-Rhine Canal and the Great Midland Canal (joining from the east to west the rivers Elbe, Weser, and Rhine) are the most important. The first involves an expenditure of over £8,000,000 altogether, and the second is variously estimated at from £10,000,000 to £20,000,000, according to its eventual scope. The latter is intended to amalgamate the eastern and western waterways of the nation and to join the Dortmund-Ems Canal to the Rhine system, in order to give the latter river an outlet to the sea via a German port, instead of only through ports in the Netherlands. It will also place the Rhine-Main-Danube connection in direct communication with all the streams of North Germany."

_United States Bureau of Statistics, Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance, January, 1899._

The Rhine-Elbe canal project is one which the Emperor has greatly at heart, and when, in August, 1899, a bill to promote it was defeated in the Prussian Landtag by the Agrarians, who feared that canal improvements would promote agricultural competition, his resentment was expressed in an extraordinary edict, which said: "The royal government, to its keen regret, has been compelled to notice that a number of officials, whose duty it is to support the policy of His Majesty the King, and to execute and advance the measures of His Majesty's government, are not sufficiently conscious of this obligation. … Such conduct is opposed to all the traditions of the Prussian administration, and cannot be tolerated." This was followed by an extensive dismissal of officials, and excited strong feeling against the government in a class which is nothing if not loyal to the monarchy.

GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (November). Railway concession in Asia Minor, to the Persian Gulf.

See (in this volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1899 (NOVEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1899 (November). Re-arrangement of affairs in the Samoan Islands. Partition of the islands with the United States. Withdrawal of England, with compensations in the Tonga and Solomon Islands and in Africa.

See (in this volume) SAMOAN ISLANDS.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900. Military and naval expenditure.

See (in this volume) WAR BUDGETS.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900. Naval strength.

See (in this volume) NAVIES OF THE SEA POWERS.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (January). Introduction of the Civil Code.

On the first day of the year 1900 a great revolution was effected in the laws of Germany, by putting into operation the new German Civil Code. "Since the close of the fifteenth century Germany has been the land of documentary right. The Roman judicial code was recognized as common law; while all legal procedure distinctly native in its origin was confined to certain districts and municipalities, and was, therefore, entirely devoid of Imperial signification in the wider sense. The Civil Code of the land was represented by the Corpus Juris Civilis, a Latin work entirely incomprehensible to the layman. {249} This very remarkable circumstance can be accounted for only by the weakness of mediæval German Imperialism. In England and France royalty itself had, since the fourteenth century, assumed control of the laws in order that a homogeneous national code might be developed. German Imperialism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, was incapable of such a task. …

"An incessant conflict has been waging in Germany between the Roman Law of the Empire and the native law as perpetuated in the special enactments of the separate provinces and municipalities. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the preponderance of power lay with the Roman system, which was further supported by the German science of jurisprudence— a science identified exclusively with the common law of Rome. Science looked upon the native systems of legal procedure as irrational and barbarous; and as Roman judicature exercised complete dominion over all legislation, the consequence was that it steadily advanced, while native and local law was gradually destroyed. Only within the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has the native law of Germany been aroused to the defence of its interests, … the signal for the attack upon Roman Law being given by King Frederick William I, of Prussia. As early as 1713 this monarch decreed that Roman law was to be abrogated in his dominions, and replaced by the native law of Prussia. The movement became general; and the era of modern legal codes was ushered in. The legal code of Bavaria was established in 1756; Prussia followed in 1794; France, in 1804 (Code Civil); Baden, in 1809; Austria, in 1811 (Das Oesterreichische Buergerliche Gesetzbuch); and finally Saxony, in 1863 (the designation here being similar to that adopted by Austria). Everywhere the motto was the same; viz., 'Emancipation from the Latin Code of Rome.' The native code was to supplant the foreign, obscure, and obsolete Corpus Juris. But the success of these newly established codes was limited; each being applicable to its own particular province only. Moreover, many of the German states had retained the Roman law; confining their reforms to a few modifications. …

"The reestablishment of the German Empire was, therefore, essential also to the reestablishment of German law. As early as 1874 the initial steps for the incorporation of a new German Civil Code had already been taken; and this work has now at last been completed. On August 18, 1896, the new system, together with a 'Law of Introduction,' was promulgated by Emperor William II. It will become effective on January 1, 1900, a day which will ever be memorable as marking the climax of a development of four centuries. At the close of the fifteenth century Roman law was accepted in Germany; and now, at the end of the nineteenth, this entire system is to be completely abolished throughout the Empire. As a means of education, and solely for this purpose, the Roman Code will be retained in the universities. As a work of art it is immortal; as a system of laws, perishable. The last relic of that grand fabric of laws, which once dominated the whole world, crumbles to-day. The national idea is victorious; and German law for the German Empire is at last secured."

_R. Sohm, The Civil Code of Germany (Forum, October, 1800)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (January-March). The outbreak of the "Boxers" in northern China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (February). Adhesion to the arrangement of an "open door" commercial policy in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1890-1900 (SEPTEMBER-FEBRUARY).

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (February-June). Increased naval programme.

With much difficulty, and as the result of strenuous pressure, the Emperor succeeded in carrying through the Reichstag, in June, a bill which doubles the programme of naval increase adopted in 1898.

See (in this volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (April).

"After the way had been prepared by a speech of the Emperor to the officers of the Berlin garrison on January 7, 1900, and by a vigorous Press agitation, this project was brought before the Reichstag on February 8. In form it was an amendment of the Sexennate, or Navy Law of 1898, which had laid down a six years' programme of naval construction. By the new measure this programme was revised and extended over a period of 20 years. Instead of the double squadron of 10 battleships, with its complement of cruisers and other craft, it was demanded that the Government should be authorized to build two double squadrons, or 38 battleships and the corresponding number of cruisers. The Bill also provided for a large increase in the number of ships to be employed in the protection of German interests in foreign waters. The Centre party, both through its speakers in the Reichstag and through its organs in the Press, at first took up a very critical attitude towards the Bill. Its spokesmen dwelt especially upon the breach of faith involved in the extension of the programme of naval construction so soon after the compromise of 1898 had been accepted, and upon the difficulty of finding the money to pay for a fleet of such magnitude. The Clerical leaders, however, did not persist in their opposition, and finally agreed to accept the main provisions of the Bill, with the exception of the proposed increase in the number of ships employed in foreign waters. They made it a condition that the Government should incorporate with the Bill two financial projects designed to provide the money required without burdening the working classes. Both the Stamp Duties Bill and the Customs Bill were adopted by the Government, and the Navy Bill was carried with the aid of the Centre."

_Berlin Correspondent, London Times._

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (May). The Lex Heinze.

The Socialists won a notable triumph in May, when they forced the Reichstag to adopt their views in the shaping of a measure known as the Lex Heinze. This Bill, as introduced by the Government, gave the police increased powers in dealing with immorality. The Clericals and the Conservatives sought to extend its scope by amendments which were denounced by the Radicals and Socialists as placing restrictions upon the "liberty of art and literature." After a prolonged struggle, in which the Socialists resorted to the use of obstruction, the most obnoxious amendments were withdrawn.

{250}

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (May). Passage of the Meat Inspection Bill.

A much discussed and sharply contested bill, providing for a stringent inspection of imported meats, and aimed especially at the obstructing of the American meat trade, was passed by the Reichstag on the 23d of May. It prohibits the importation of canned or sausage meat entirely, and imposes conditions on the introduction of other meats which are thought to be, in some cases, prohibitory. The measure was originally claimed to be purely one of sanitary precaution. It "had been introduced in the Reichstag early in 1899, but the sharp conflict of interests about it kept it for more than a year in committee, When the bill finally emerged for discussion in the Reichstag, it was found that the Agrarian majority had distorted it from a sanitary to a protective measure. Both in the new form they gave the bill and in their discussions of it in the Reichstag, the Agrarians showed that it was chiefly the exclusion of foreign meats, rather than a system of sanitary inspection, that they wanted. As finally passed in May the bill had lost some of the harsh prohibitory features given it by the Agrarians, the latter contenting themselves with the exclusion of canned meats and sausages. To the foreign student of German politics, the Meat Inspection Law is chiefly interesting as illustrating the tendency of the general government to seize upon functions which have hitherto been in the hands of the individual states and municipalities, as well as of bringing the private affairs of the people under the control of governmental authority. It is another long step of the German government away from the principle of 'laissez-faire.' The task undertaken by the government here is itself a stupendous one. There is certainly no other great government in the world that would endeavor to organize the administrative machinery for inspecting every pound of meat that comes upon the markets of the country."

_W. C. Dreher, A Letter from Germany (Atlantic Monthly, March, 1901)._

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (June). Opening of the Elbe and Trave Canal.

"The new Elbe and Trave Canal, which has been building five years and has been completed at a cost of 24,500,000 marks ($5,831,000)—of which Prussia contributed 7,500,000 marks ($1,785,000) and the old Hansa town of Lübeck, which is now reviving, 17,000,000 marks ($4,046,000)—was formally opened by the German Emperor on the 16th [of June]. The length of the new canal-which is the second to join the North Sea and the Baltic, following the Kaiser Wilhelm Ship Canal, or Kiel Canal, which was finished five years ago at a cost of 156,000,000 marks ($37,128,000)-is about 41 miles. The available breadth of the new canal is 72 feet; breadth of the lock gates, 46 feet; length of the locks, 87 yards; depth of the locks, 8 feet 2 inches. The canal is crossed by twenty-nine bridges, erected at a cost of $1,000,000. The span of the bridges is in all cases not less than 30 yards and their height above water level about 15 feet. There are seven locks, five being between Lübeck and the Möllner See—the highest point of the canal—and two between Möllner See and Lauenburg-on-the-Elbe."

_United States, Consular Reports, September, 1900, page 8._

A memorandum by the British Charge d'Affaires in Berlin on the Elbe-Trave Canal says that the opening of the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal injuriously affected the trade of Lübeck. This was foreseen, and in 1894 a plan was sanctioned for the widening of the existing canal, which only allowed of the passage of vessels of about thirty tons. The direction of the old canal was followed only to some extent, as it had immense curves, while the new bed was fairly straight from Lübeck to Lauenburg, on the Elbe above Hamburg. The memorandum states that the undertaking is of great importance to the States along the Elbe, as well as to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Russia. It will to some extent divert traffic from Hamburg, and possibly reduce somewhat the revenue of the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (June-December). Co-operation with the Powers in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (September). Government loan placed in America.

Great excitement and indignation was caused in September by the action of the imperial government in placing a loan of 80,000,000 marks (about $20,000,000) in the American money market. On the meeting of the Reichstag, the finance minister, Dr. von Miquel, replying to attacks upon this measure, explained that in September the state of the German market was such that if they had raised the 80,000,000 marks at home the bank discount rate would have risen above the present rate of 5 per cent. before the end of the year. In the previous winter the bank rate had been at 6 per cent, for a period of 90 days, and during three weeks it had stood at 7 per cent. The government had been strongly urged to do everything in its power to prevent the recurrence of such high rates of discount. The London rate was rapidly approaching the German, and there was reason to fear that there would be a serious flow of gold from Germany. It was therefore urgently desirable to attract gold from abroad, and there was no country where money was so easy at the time as in the United States. This was due to the extraordinarily favorable balance of American trade and the remarkable increase in exports out of all proportion to the development of imports. Another reason was the American Currency Law, which enabled the national banks to issue as much as 100 per cent. of their capital in loans, whereas they formerly issued only 90 per cent. There was no doubt that the 80,000,000 marks could have been obtained in Germany, but the public must have been aware that other loans of much greater extent were impending. There was going to be a loan of about 150,000,000 marks for the expedition to China, and it was certain that before the end of the year 1901 considerable demands would be made upon the public.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (September). Proposal to require leaders of the Chinese attack on foreigners to be given up.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (October). Anglo-German agreement concerning policy in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

{251}

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (October 9). Lèse-majesté in criticism of the Emperor's speech to soldiers departing for China, enjoining no quarter and commending the Huns as a military example. Increasing prosecutions for Lèse-majesté.

On the 9th of October, a newspaper correspondent wrote from Berlin: "The Berlin newspapers of yesterday and to-day chronicle no fewer than five trials for 'lèse-majesté.' The most important case was that of Herr Maximilian Harden, the editor of the weekly magazine 'Zukunft.' Herr Harden, who enjoyed the confidence of the late Prince Bismarck, wields a very satirical pen, and has been designated 'The Junius of modern Germany.' In 1898 Herr Harden was convicted of lèse-majesté and was sentenced to six months' incarceration in a fortress. In the present instance he was accused of having committed lèse-majesté in an article, 'The Fight with the Dragon,' published in the 'Zukunft' of August 11. The article dealt with the speech delivered by the Emperor at Bremerhaven on July 27, 'the telegraphic transmission of which, as was asserted at the time, had been forbidden by Count von Bülow.' The article noted as a fact that the Emperor had commanded the troops who were leaving for China to give no quarter and to make no prisoners, but, imitating the example of Attila and the Huns, to excite a terror in East Asia which would last for a thousand years. The Emperor had added, 'May the blessing of God attend your flags and may this war have the blessed result that Christianity shall make its way into China.' Herr Harden in his comments on this speech had critically examined the deeds of the historic Attila and had contrasted him with the Attila of popular story in order to demonstrate that he was not a proper model to set up for the imitation of German soldiers. The article in the 'Zukunft' had also maintained that it was not the mission of the German Empire to spread Christianity in China, and, finally, had described a war of revenge as a mistake." No publicity was allowed to be given to the proceedings of the trial. "Herr Harden was found guilty not only of having been wanting in the respect due to the Emperor but of having actually attacked his Majesty in a way that constituted lèse-majesté. The Court sentenced him to six months' incarceration in a fortress and at the same time directed that the incriminated number of the 'Zukunft' should be destroyed.

"The 'Vossische Zeitung' remarks:—'We read in the newspapers to-day that a street porter in Marburg has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for insulting the Empress, that in Hamburg a workman has been sentenced to five months' imprisonment for lèse-majesté, that in Beuthen a workman has been sentenced to a year's imprisonment for lèse-majesté, and that in Dusseldorf a man who is deaf and dumb has been sentenced to four months' imprisonment for the same offence. The prosecutions for lèse-majesté are multiplying at an alarming rate. We must emphatically repeat that such proceedings appear to us to be in the last degree unsuited to promote the principles of Monarchy. … The greater the number of political prosecutions that are instituted the more accustomed, under force of circumstances, does the Press become to the practice of writing so that the reader may read between the lines. And this attitude is to the advantage neither of public morals nor of the Throne. … We regret in particular that the case of yesterday (that of Herr Harden) was tried 'in camera.' … It has justly been said that publicity is more indispensable in political trials than in prosecutions against thieves and murderers. … If there is no prospect of an improvement in this respect the Reichstag will have to devote its serious attention to the question how the present administration of justice is to be dealt with, not only in the interest of freedom of speech and of the Press, but also for the good of the Crown and the well-being of the State.'"

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (October 18). Change in the Imperial Chancellorship.

On the 18th of October it was announced in the "Imperial Gazette" that" His Majesty the Emperor and King has been graciously pleased to accede to the request of the Imperial Chancellor, the President of the Ministry and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prince Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Prince of Ratibor and Corvey, to be relieved of his offices, and has at the same time conferred upon him the high Order of the Black Eagle with brilliants. His Majesty has further been graciously pleased to appoint Count von Bülow, Minister of State and Secretary of State to the Foreign Office, to be Imperial Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs." Count von Bülow is the third of the successors of Prince Bismarck in the high office of the Imperial Chancellor. The latter was followed by Count von Caprivi, who gave way to Prince Hohenlohe in 1894. Prince Hohenlohe had nearly reached the age of 82 when he is said to have asked leave to retire from public life.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (November). Withdrawal of legal tender silver coins.

"Germany has lately taken a step to clear off the haze from her financial horizon by calling in the outstanding thalers which are full legal tender, and turning them into subsidiary coins of limited legal tender—a process which will extend over ten years. At the end of that time, if no misfortune intervenes, she will be on the gold standard as surely and safely as England is. Her banks can now tender silver to their customers when they ask for gold, as the Bank of France can and does occasionally. When this last measure is carried into effect the only full legal-tender money in Germany will be gold, or Government notes redeemable in gold."

_New York Nation, November 29, 1900._

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (November-December). The Reichstag and the Kaiser. His speeches and his system of personal government.

In the Reichstag, which reassembled on the 14th of November, "the speeches of the Kaiser were discussed by men of all parties, with a freedom that was new and refreshing in German political debates. Apart from the Kaiser's speeches in connection with the Chinese troubles, the debates brought out some frank complaints from the more 'loyal' sections of German politics, that the Kaiser is surrounded by advisers who systematically misinform him as to the actual state of public opinion. It has long been felt, and particularly during the past few years, that the present system of two cabinets—one of which is nominally responsible to the Reichstag and public opinion, while the other is merely a personal cabinet, responsible to neither, and yet exercising an enormous influence in shaping the monarch's policies—has been growing more and more intolerable. This system of personal government is becoming the subject of chronic disquietude in Germany, and even the more loyal section of the press is growing restive under it. Bismarck's wise maxim, 'A monarch should appear in public only when attired in the clothing of a responsible ministry,' is finding more and more supporters among intelligent Germans."

_W. C. Dreher, A Letter from Germany (Atlantic Monthly, March, 1901)._

{252}

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (December). Census of the Empire. Growth of Berlin and other cities. Urban population compared with that in the United States.

A despatch from Berlin, February 26, announced the results of the census of December, 1900, made public that day. The population of the German Empire is shown to have increased from 52,279,901 in 1895 to 56,345,014. Of this population 27,731,067 are males and 28,613,947 females. Over 83 per cent. of the whole population is contained in the four kingdoms; of these Prussia comes first with (in round figures) 34,500,000 inhabitants, and Bavaria second with 6,200,000. The figures for Saxony and Würtemberg are 4,200,000 and 2,300,000 respectively. More than 16 per cent. of the population is resident in the 33 towns of over 100,000 inhabitants. Of these 33 towns the largest is Berlin, while the smallest is Cassel, of which the inhabitants number 106,001.

The Prussian Statistical Office had already published the results of the census, so far as they concern Berlin and its suburbs. It appears that the population of the German capital now amounts to 1,884,151 souls, as against 1,677,304 in 1895 and 826,3!1 in 1871. The population of the suburbs has increased from 57,735 in 1871 and 435,236 in 1895, to 639,310 in 1900. The total population of the capital, including the suburbs, is given as 2,523,461 souls, as against 2,112,540 in 1895, an increase of over 19 per cent. Some figures relating to other cities had previously appeared, going to show "an acceleration of the movement of population from the country toward the great cities. The growth of the urban population in five years has been astonishing. The population of Berlin, for example, increased more than twice as much in the last five years as in the preceding five. The fourteen German cities now having a population of above 200,000 have increased more than 17 per cent since 1895. … No other European capital is growing so fast in wealth and numbers as Berlin; and the city is rapidly assuming a dominant position in all spheres of German life."

_W. C. Dreher, A Letter from Germany (Atlantic Monthly, March, 1901)._

The percentage of growth in Berlin "has been far outstripped by many other cities, especially by Nuremberg; and so far as our own census shows, no American city of over 50,000 inhabitants can match its increase. In five years it has grown from 162,000 to 261,000—60 per cent increase. That would mean 120 per cent in a decade.

"But though Germany has only one city of more than one million, and one more of more than half a million, and the United States has three of each class, Germany has, in proportion to its population rather more cities of from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, and decidedly more of from 100,000 to 500,000, than the United States. In the United States 8,000,000 people live in cities of over 500,000 inhabitants, against some 3,000,000 in Germany; yet in the United States a larger percentage of the population lives in places which have under 50,000 inhabitants."

_The World's Work, March, 1901._

GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (January). Celebration of the Prussian Bicentenary.

_See (in this volume) PRUSSIA: A. D. 1901._

GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (January). Promised increase of protective duties.

In the Reichstag—the Parliament of the Empire—on the 26th of January, the Agrarians brought in a resolution demanding that the Prussian Government should "in the most resolute manner" use its influence to secure a "considerable increase" in the protective duties on agricultural produce at the approaching revision of German commercial policy, and should take steps to get the new Tariff Bill laid before the Reichstag as promptly as possible. In response, the Imperial Chancellor, Count von Bülow, made the following declaration of the policy of the government, for which all parties had been anxiously waiting: "Fully recognizing the difficult situation in which agriculture is placed, and inspired by the desire effectively to improve that situation, the Prussian Government is resolved to exert its influence in order to obtain adequate protection for agricultural produce by means of the Customs duties, which must be raised to an extent calculated to attain that object."

GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (January). The Prussian Canal scheme enlarged.

The canal scheme which suffered defeat in the Prussian diet in 1899 (see above), and the rejection of which by his dutiful agrarian subjects roused the wrath of the emperor-king, was again brought forward, at the opening of the session of the Diet, or Landtag, in January, 1901, with a great enlargement of its scope and cost, and with an emphatic expression of the expectation of his Majesty that the bill providing for it should be passed. The bill covered no less than seven different projects, of which the total cost to the State was estimated at about 389,010,700 marks, or nearly $100,000,000. These include the Rhine-Elbe Canal, which is calculated to cost 260,784,700 marks; a ship canal between Berlin and Stettin, to cost 41,500,000 marks; a waterway connecting the Oder and the Vistula, of which the cost, together with that of a channel rendering the Warthe navigable for ships from Posen to the junction of the Netze, is estimated at 22,631,000 marks, and a canal connecting the province of Silesia with the canal joining the Oder to the Spree. The bill further proposed that the State should participate in the work of improving the flow of water in the Lower Oder and the Upper Havel to the extent of 40,989,000 marks and 9,670,000 marks respectively, and should contribute the sum of 9,336,000 marks towards the canalization of the Spree.

GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (February). Annual meeting of the Husbandists.

The annual meeting of the Husbandists, one of the organizations of German agrarian interests, held at Berlin on the 11th of February, is reported to have been attended by some 8,000 delegates. The official report of the organization showed a membership of 232,000, or an increase of 26,000 over that of the previous year. Large gains were made during the year in the southern section of the Empire. It also appeared that no fewer than 202,000 members represented small farmers. A resolution was adopted demanding that the Government grant such protection to agriculture as would enable it to form prices independent of the Bourse, fixing the duties high enough to make it possible for tillers of the soil to reap as large profits for their products as from 1870 to 1800. "Above all," said the resolution, "Germany must not grant the same tariffs to countries discriminating in their tariffs, as in the case of the United States."

----------GERMANY: End--------

{253}

GERRYMANDERING: Legislation against by the Congress of the United States.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY).

GLADSTONE, William Ewart: Retirement from public life.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.

Death and burial.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (MAY).

GOEBEL, Governor William E.: Assassination.

See (in this volume) KENTUCKY; A. D. 1895-1900.

GOLD COAST COLONY.

See (in this volume) ASHANTI; and AFRICA: A. D. 1900.

GOLD DEMOCRATS.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1893 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

GOLD FIELDS, The Witwatersrand.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1885-1890.

GOLD MINING: Cape Nome discovery.

See (in this volume) ALASKA: A. D. 1898-1899

GOLD STANDARD.

See (in this volume) MONETARY QUESTIONS AND MEASURES.

GOLDEN STOOL, King Prempeh's.

See (in this volume) ASHANTI.

GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE, at Khartoum.

See (in this volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1898-1899.

GOSCHEN, George J.: First Lord of the Admiralty in the British Cabinet.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.

GOSPODAR.

See (in this volume) BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES (MONTENEGRO).

GOTHENBURG SYSTEM, The. Dispensary Laws.

See (in this volume) SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1892-1899; NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1897-1899; SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1899; and ALABAMA: A. D. 1899.

GRASPAN, Battle of.

See (in this volume) SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

GREAT BRITAIN.

See ENGLAND.

GREATER NEW YORK.

See (in this volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1896-1897.

----------GREECE: Start--------

GREECE: Light on prehistoric times. Recent explorations in Crete and Egypt.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: CRETE; and same: EGYPT.

GREECE: A. D. 1896 (April). Revival of Olympic Games.

See (in this volume) ATHENS: A. D. 1896.

GREECE: A. D. 1897 (February-March). Interference in Crete. Expedition of Colonel Vassos. Appeal for the annexation of the island. Action of the Great Powers.

See (in this volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).

GREECE: A. D. 1897 (March-June). Disastrous war with Turkey. Appeal for peace. Submission to the Powers on the Cretan question.

See (in this volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

GREECE: A. D. 1899 (May-July). Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.

GREECE: A. D. 1899-1900. Attitude towards impending revolt in Macedonia.

See (in this volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1901; and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

----------GREECE: End--------

GREENBACKS.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY); 1895-1896 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY); 1896-1898; and 1900 (MARCH-DECEMBER)

GREENLAND, Recent exploration of.

See (in this volume) POLAR EXPLORATION, 1895-1896, 1896, 1897, 1898-1899, 1898-, 1899, 1899-1900.

GREYTOWN: Possession given to Nicaragua.

See (in this volume) CENTRAL AMERICA (NICARAGUA-COSTA RICA): A. D. 1897.

GRONDWET (CONSTITUTION), of the South African Republic.

See (in this volume) CONSTITUTION (GRONDWET) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.

GUAM, The island of: A. D. 1898 (June). Seizure by the U. S. S. Charleston.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE), THE WAR WITH SPAIN.

GUAM: A. D. 1898 (December). Cession to the United States.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).

GUAM: A. D. 1900. Naval station.

Work planned for the creation of an U. S. naval station at Guam is expected to cost, it is said, about $1,000,000.

GUANTANAMO: Capture of harbor by American navy.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE-JULY).

GUATEMALA.

See (in this volume) CENTRAL AMERICA.

GUAYAMA, Engagement at.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1898 (JULY-AUGUST: PORTO RICO).

GUÉRIN, M.: The barricade of.

See (in this volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1899-1900 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

GUIANA, British: A. D. 1895-1899. Venezuela boundary question.

See (in this volume) VENEZUELA.

GUIANA, French: Boundary dispute with Brazil. Award of Swiss arbitrators.

See (in this volume) BRAZIL: A. D. 1900.

GUINEA, French.

See (in this volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (FRENCH WEST AFRICA).

GUNGUNHANA, Portuguese war with.

See (in this volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1895-1896 (PORTUGUESE EAST AFRICA).

{254}

H.

HABANA, or HAVANA.

See (in this volume) CUBA.

HAFFKINE'S PROPHYLACTIC.

See (in this volume) PLAGUE.

HAGUE, The, Peace Conference at.

See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.

HALEPA, The Pact of.

See (in this volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1896.

HALL OF FAME, for Great Americans, The.

In the designing of new buildings for the New York University College of Arts and Science, at University Heights, certain exigencies of art led to the construction of a stately colonnade, surrounding a high terrace which overlooks Harlem River, and the happy idea was conceived by Chancellor MacCracken of evolving therefrom a "Hall of Fame for Great Americans." The idea has been carried out, by providing for the inscription of carefully chosen names on panels of stone, with a further provision of space for statues, busts, portraits, tablets, autographs, and other memorials of those whose names are found worthy of the place. For the selection of names thus honored, a body of one hundred electors, representing all parts of the country, was appointed by the Senate of the University. These electors were apportioned to four classes of citizens, in as nearly equal numbers as possible, namely:

(A) University or college presidents and educators. (B) Professors of history and scientists. (C) Publicists, editors, and authors. (D) Judges of the Supreme Court, State or National.

It was required of the electors that they should consider the claims of eminent citizens in many classes, not less than fifteen, and that a majority of these classes should be represented among the first fifty names to be chosen. They were, furthermore, restricted in their choice to native-born Americans, a rule which had some reasons in its favor, though it excluded from the Hall such shining names in American history as those of John Winthrop, Roger Williams, and Alexander Hamilton.

As the result of the votes given by 97 electors, in the year 1900, 29 names were found to have received the approval of 51 or more of the electors, and these were ordered to be inscribed in the Hall of Fame. The 29 names are as follows, in the order of preference shown them by the 97 electors, as indicated by the number of votes given to each:

GEORGE WASHINGTON. 97 ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 96 DANIEL WEBSTER. 96 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN. 94 ULYSSES S. GRANT. 92 JOHN MARSHALL. 91 THOMAS JEFFERSON. 90 RALPH WALDO EMERSON. 87 HENRY WADSWORTH LONGFELLOW. 85 ROBERT FULTON. 85 WASHINGTON IRVING. 83 JONATHAN EDWARDS. 81 SAMUEL F. B. MORSE. 80 DAVID GLASGOW FARRAGUT. 79 HENRY CLAY. 74 NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE. 73 GEORGE PEABODY. 72 ROBERT E. LEE. 69 PETER COOPER. 69 ELI WHITNEY. 67 JOHN JAMES AUDUBON. 67 HORACE MANN. 67 HENRY WARD BEECHER 66 JAMES KENT. 65 JOSEPH STORY. 64 JOHN ADAMS. 61 WILLIAM ELLERY CHANNING 58 GILBERT STUART. 52 ASA GRAY. 51

Resolutions by the Senate of the University have determined the action to be taken for the selection of further names, as follows: "The Senate will take action in the year 1902, under the rules of the Hall of Fame, toward filling at that time the vacant panels belonging to the present year, being 21 in number." "Each nomination of the present year to the Hall of Fame that has received the approval of ten or more electors, yet has failed to receive a majority, will be considered a nomination for the year 1902. To these shall be added any name nominated in writing by five of the Board of Electors. Also other names may be nominated by the New York University Senate in such way as it may find expedient. Any nomination by any citizen of the United States that shall be addressed to the New York University Senate shall be received and considered by that body." Furthermore: "Every five years throughout the twentieth century five additional names will be inscribed, provided the electors under the rules can agree by a majority upon so many."

The Senate further took note of the many requests that foreign-born Americans should be considered, by adopting a memorial to the University Corporation, to the effect that it will welcome a similar memorial to foreign-born Americans, for which a new edifice may be joined to the north porch of the present hall, containing one fifth of the space of the latter, providing thirty panels for names.

_Chancellor H. M. MacCracken, The Hall of Fame (American Review of Reviews, November 1900, page 563)._

_archive.org/details/sim_review-of-reviews- us_july-december-1900_22_index/mode/ 2up?view=theater&q=MacCracken_

HANKOW.

See (in this volume) SHANGHAI.

HART, Sir Robert: Testimony as to the causes and character of the "Boxer" movement in China.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Summer School for Cuban Teachers.

See (in this volume) CUBA: A. D. 1900.

HAVANA.

See (in this volume) CUBA.

[Image: Map of Hawaii and Honolulu.]

HAWAII. Names and areas of the islands.

"For practical purposes, there are eight islands in the Hawaiian group. The others are mere rocks, of no value at present. These eight islands, beginning from the northwest, are named Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii. The areas of the islands [in square miles] are: Niihau, 97; Kauai, 590; Oahu, 600; Molokai, 270; Maui, 760; Lanai, 150; Kahoolawe, 63; Hawaii, 4,210. Total, 6,740.

{255}

As compared with States of the Union, the total area of the group approximates most nearly to that of the State of New Jersey—7,185 square miles. It is more than three times that of Delaware—2,050 square miles."

_Bulletin of the Bureau of American Republics, August, 1898._

HAWAII: Annexation to the United States.

On the 16th of June, 1897, the President of the United States transmitted to Congress a new treaty for the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii to the United States, signed that day by representatives of the governments of the two countries, appointed to draft the same. With the treaty he submitted a report from his Secretary of State, Mr. Sherman, in which the latter said: "The negotiation which has culminated in the treaty now submitted has not been a mere resumption of the negotiation of 1893 (see HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, in volume 3), but was initiated and has been conducted upon independent lines. Then an abrupt revolutionary movement had brought about the dethronement of the late queen and set up instead of the theretofore titular monarchy a provisional government for the control and management of public affairs and the protection of the public peace, such government to exist only until terms of union with the United States should have been negotiated and agreed upon. Thus self-constituted, its promoters claimed for it only a de facto existence until the purpose of annexation in which it took rise should be accomplished. As time passed and the plan of union with the United States became an uncertain contingency, the organization of the Hawaiian commonwealth underwent necessary changes, the temporary character of its first Government gave place to a permanent scheme under a constitution framed by the representatives of the electors of the Islands, administration by an executive council not chosen by suffrage, but self-appointed, was succeeded by an elective and parliamentary regime, and the ability of the new Government to hold—as the Republic of Hawaii—an independent place in the family of sovereign States, preserving order at home and fulfilling international obligations abroad, has been put to the proof. Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within its island borders, Hawaii sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign State. However sufficient may have been the authority of the commissioners with whom the United States Government treated in 1893, and however satisfied the President may then have been of their power to offer the domain of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, the fact remains that what they then tendered was a territory rather than an established Government, a country whose administration had been cast down by a bloodless but complete revolution and a community in a state of political transition. Now, however, the Republic of Hawaii approaches the United States as an equal, and points for its authority to that provision of article 82 of the constitution, promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby—'The President, with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.'" The essential articles of the treaty thus submitted were the following:

ARTICLE I. The Republic of Hawaii hereby cedes absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies; and it is agreed that all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii.

ARTICLE II. The Republic of Hawaii also cedes and hereby transfers to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, government or crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipments and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining. The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands; but the Congress of the United States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition, Provided: that all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military or naval purposes of the United States, or may be assigned for the use of the local government, shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.

ARTICLE III. Until Congress shall provide for the government of such Islands all the civil, judicial and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing government in said Islands, shall be vested in such person or persons and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct; and the President shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned. The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded between the United States and such foreign nations. The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted for the fulfilment of the treaties so extinguished, and not inconsistent with this treaty nor contrary to the Constitution of the United States, nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise determine. Until legislation shall be enacted extending the United States customs laws and regulations to the Hawaiian Islands, the existing customs relations of the Hawaiian Islands with the United States and other countries shall remain unchanged.

ARTICLE IV. The public debt of the Republic of Hawaii, lawfully existing at the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty, including the amounts due to depositors in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank, is hereby assumed by the Government of the United States; but the liability of the United States in this regard shall in no case exceed $4,000,000. So long, however, as the existing Government and the present commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands are continued, as hereinbefore provided, said Government shall continue to pay the interest on said debt.

ARTICLE V. There shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Islands, except upon such conditions as are now or may hereafter be allowed by the laws of the United States, and no Chinese by reason of anything herein contained shall be allowed to enter the United States from the Hawaiian Islands.

{256}

ARTICLE VI. The President shall appoint five commissioners, at least two of whom shall be residents of the Hawaiian Islands, who shall as soon as reasonably practicable, recommend to Congress such legislation concerning the Territory of Hawaii as they shall deem necessary or proper."

_United States, 55th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Document E._

A determined opposition to the renewed proposal of Hawaiian annexation was manifested at once, in Congress and by many expressions of public opinion at large. It condemned the measure on grounds of principle and policy alike. It denied the right of the existing government at Honolulu to represent the Hawaiian people in such disposal of their country. It denied the constitutional right of the government of the United States to annex territory in the circumstances and the manner proposed. It denied, too, the expected advantages, whether naval or commercial, that the annexation of the islands would give to the United States. A protest against the annexation came also from the deposed Hawaiian queen, Liliuokalani, and another from a party in the island which attempted to rally round the presumptive heiress to the overturned Hawaiian throne, the Princess Kaiulani. The government of Japan also entered a protest, apprehending some disturbance of rights which it had acquired for its emigrating subjects, by treaty with the Republic of Hawaii; but this protest was ultimately withdrawn. The army of opposition sufficed, however, to hold the question of annexation in abeyance for more than a year. No action was taken on the treaty during the special session of the Senate. When Congress assembled in December, 1897, President McKinley repeated his expressions in its favor, and the treaty was reported to the Senate, from the committee on foreign relations, early in the following year; but the two-thirds majority needed for its ratification could not be obtained.

Attempts to accomplish the annexation by that method were given up in March, 1898, and the advocates of the acquisition determined to gain their end by the passage of a joint resolution of Congress, which required no more than a majority of each House. Over the question in this form the battle was fiercely fought, until the 15th of June in the House of Representatives and the 6th of July in the Senate, on which dates the following "joint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States" was passed. It was signed by the President the following day:

"Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining: Therefore,

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singular the property and rights hereinbefore mentioned are vested in the United States of America. The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands; but the Congress of the United States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition: Provided, That all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military, or naval purposes of the United States, or may be assigned for the use of the local government, shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.

"Until Congress shall provide for the government of such islands all the civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing government in said islands shall be vested in such person or persons and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct; and the President shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned. The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded, between the United States and such foreign nations. The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted for the fulfillment of the treaties so extinguished, and not inconsistent with this joint resolution nor contrary to the Constitution of the United States nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise determine. Until legislation shall be enacted extending the United States customs laws and regulations to the Hawaiian Islands the existing customs relations of the Hawaiian Islands with the United States and other countries shall remain unchanged. The public debt of the Republic of Hawaii, lawfully existing at the date of the passage of this joint resolution, including the amounts due to depositors in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank, is hereby assumed by the Government of the United States; but the liability of the United States in this regard shall in no case exceed four million dollars. So long, however, as the existing Government and the present commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands are continued as hereinbefore provided said Government shall continue to pay the interest on said debt.

"There shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Islands, except upon such conditions as are now or may hereafter be allowed by the laws of the United States; and no Chinese, by reason of anything herein contained, shall be allowed to enter the United States from the Hawaiian Islands.

"The President shall appoint five commissioners, at least two of whom shall be residents of the Hawaiian Islands, who shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, recommend to Congress such legislation concerning the Hawaiian Islands as they shall deem necessary or proper.

{257}

"SECTION 2. That the commissioners hereinbefore provided for shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

"SECTION 3. That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be immediately available, to be expended at the discretion of the President of the United States of America, for the purpose of carrying this joint resolution into effect."

There was no strict division of parties on the passage of the resolution; but only three Republicans in the House voted against it. Speaker Reed, who had strenuously opposed the measure, was absent. Two Republican senators voted against the resolution and three who opposed it were paired. A large majority of the Democrats in both Houses were in opposition. The policy advocated by the opponents of annexation was set forth in the following resolution, which they brought to a vote in the House, and which was defeated by 205 to 94:

"1. That the United States will view as an act of hostility any attempt upon the part of any government of Europe or Asia to take or hold possession of the Hawaiian islands or to account upon any pretext or under any conditions sovereign authority therein.

2. That the United States hereby announces to the people of those islands and to the world the guarantee of the independence of the people of the Hawaiian islands and their firm determination to maintain the same."

Immediately upon the passage of the resolution of annexation, preparations were begun at Honolulu for the transfer of sovereignty to the United States, which was performed ceremoniously August 12. Meantime, the President had appointed, as commissioners to recommend legislation for the government of the Islands, Messrs. Shelby M. Cullom, John T. Morgan, Robert R. Hitt, Sanford B. Dole, and Walter F. Frear. In the following November the Commission presented its report, with a draft of several bills embodying the recommended legislation. When the subject came into Congress, wide differences of opinion appeared on questions concerning the relations of the new possession to the United States and the form of government to be provided for it. As the consequence, more than a year passed before Congress reached action on the subject, and Hawaii was kept in suspense for that period, provisionally governed under the terms of the resolution of annexation. The Act which, at last, determined the status and the government of Hawaii, under the flag of the United States, became law by the President's signature on the 30th of April, 1900, and Sanford B. Dole, formerly President of the Republic of Hawaii, was appointed its governor.

The fundamental provisions of the "Act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii" are the following:

SECTION 2. That the islands acquired by the United States of America under an Act of Congress entitled "Joint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States," approved July seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii.

SECTION 3. That a Territorial government is hereby established over the said Territory, with its capital at Honolulu, on the island of Oahu.

SECTION 4. That all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii. And all citizens of the United States resident in the Hawaiian Islands who were resident there on or since August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and all the citizens of the United States who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

SECTION 5. That the Constitution, and, except as herein otherwise provided, all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States: Provided, that sections eighteen hundred and fifty and eighteen hundred and ninety of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii.

SECTION 6. That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or the provisions of this Act shall continue in force, subject to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of the United States. …

SECTION 12. That the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii shall consist of two houses, styled, respectively, the senate and house of representatives, which shall organize and sit separately, except as otherwise herein provided. The two houses shall be styled "The legislature of the Territory of Hawaii." …

SECTION 17. That no person holding office in or under or by authority of the Government of the United States or of the Territory of Hawaii shall be eligible to election to the legislature, or to hold the position of a member of the same while holding said office. …

SECTION 55. That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States locally applicable. …

SECTION 66. That the executive power of the government of the Territory of Hawaii shall be vested in a governor, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and shall hold office for four years and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President. He shall be not less than thirty-five years of age; shall be a citizen of the Territory of Hawaii; shall be commander in chief of the militia thereof; may grant pardons or reprieves for offences against the laws of the said Territory and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States until the decision of the President is made known thereon. …

SECTION 68. That all the powers and duties which, by the laws of Hawaii, are conferred upon or required of the President or any minister of the Republic of Hawaii (acting alone or in connection with any other officer or person or body) or the cabinet or executive council, and not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States, are conferred upon and required of the governor of the Territory of Hawaii, unless otherwise provided. …

{258}

SECTION 80. That the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint the chief justice and justices of the supreme court, the judges of the circuit courts, who shall hold their respective offices for the term of four years, unless sooner removed by the President. …

SECTION 81. That the judicial power of the Territory shall be vested in one supreme court, circuit courts, and in such inferior courts as the legislature may from time to time establish. …

SECTION 85. That a Delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve during each Congress, shall be elected by the voters qualified to vote for members of the house of representatives of the legislature; such Delegate shall possess the qualifications necessary for membership of the senate of the legislature of Hawaii. … Every such Delegate shall have a seat in the House of Representatives, with the right of debate, but not of voting.

SECTION 86. That there shall be established in said Territory a district court to consist of one judge, who shall reside therein and be called the district judge. The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a marshal of the United States for the said district, and said judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for six years unless sooner removed by the President. Said court shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizable in a circuit court of the United States, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court. …

SECTION 88. That the Territory of Hawaii shall comprise a customs district of the United States, with ports of entry and delivery at Honolulu, Hilo, Mahukona, and Kahului.

HAWAII: A. D. 1900. Census of the Islands. Progress of educational work.

"The last Hawaiian census, taken in the year 1896, gives a total population of 109,020, of which 31,019 were native Hawaiians. The number of Americans reported was 8,485. The results of the Federal census taken this year [1900] show the islands to have a total population of 154,001, an increase over that reported in 1896 of 44,981, or 41.2 per cent. The total land surface of the Hawaiian Islands is approximately 6,449 square miles: the average number of persons to the square mile at the last three censuses being as follows: For 1890, 13.9; 1896, 16.9; 1900,23.8.

"Education in Hawaii is making favorable progress. In Honolulu two large schoolhouses have recently been erected at a cost of $24,778 and $20,349, respectively. The department of education is under the management of a superintendent of public instruction, assisted by six commissioners of public instruction, two of whom are ladies. The tenure of office of the commissioners is six years, the term of two of them expiring each year. They serve without pay. The system is the same as that existing under the Republic of Hawaii. In the biennial period ending December 31 there were 141 public and 48 private schools in the Hawaiian Islands; 344 teachers in the public schools, of whom 113 were men and 231 were women, and 200 teachers in the private schools, of whom 79 were men and 121 were women. In the same period there were 11,436 pupils in the public schools, of whom 6,395 were boys and 5,041 were girls, and 4,054 pupils in the private schools, of whom 2,256 were boys and 1,798 were girls. This gives a total of 15,490 pupils, of whom 8,651 were boys and 6,839 were girls. … Of the 15,490 pupils, 5,045 were Hawaiian, 2,721 part Hawaiian, 601 American, 213 British, 337 German, 3,882 Portuguese, 84 Scandinavian, 1,141 Japanese, 1,314 Chinese, 30 South Sea Islanders, and 124 other foreigners. Each nationality had its own teacher. The expenditures for the two years ending December 31, 1899, were $575,353. Since the year 1888 nearly all the common schools, in which the Hawaiian language was the medium of instruction, have been converted into schools in which English alone is so employed, 98 per cent. of the children being at present instructed by teachers who use English."

_United States, Secretary of the Interior, Annual Report, November 30, 1900._

----------HAWAII: End--------

HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY, The.

See (in this volume) CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1900 (DECEMBER); and 1901 (MARCH).

HAYTI: A. D. 1896. Election of President Sam.

Hayti elected a new President, General Theresias Simon Sam, to succeed General Hippolyte, who died suddenly on the 24th of March.

HAYTI: A. D. 1897. Quarrel with Germany.

The government of Hayti came into conflict with that of Germany, in September, 1897, over what was claimed to be the illegal arrest of a Haytien-born German, named Lueders, who had secured German citizenship. Germany demanded his release, with an indemnity at the rate of $1,000 per day for his imprisonment. The demand not being acceded to promptly, the German consul at Port-au-Prince hauled down his flag. Then the United States Minister persuaded the Haytien President, General Simon Sam, to set Lueders free. But the demand for indemnity, still pending, brought two German war-ships to Port-au-Prince on the 6th of December, with their guns ready to open fire on the town if payment were not made within eight hours. For Hayti there was nothing possible but submission, and $30,000 was paid, with apologies and expressions of regret.

HEBREWS, The ancient: Their position in history as affected by recent archæological research.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH; IN BIBLE LANDS.

HECKER, Father Isaac Thomas, and the opinions called "Americanism."

See (in this volume) PAPACY: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY).

HELIUM, The discovery of.

See (in this volume) SCIENCE, RECENT; CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.

HENRY, General Guy V.: Military Governor of Porto Rico.

See (in this volume) PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898-1899 (OCTOBER-OCTOBER).

HERVEY, or COOK, ISLANDS: Annexation to New Zealand.

See (in this volume) NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1900 (OCTOBER).

HEUREAUX, President: Assassination.

See (in this volume) DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: A. D. 1899.

{259}

HICKS-BEACH, Sir Michael, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the British Cabinet.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.

HILPRECHT, Professor H. V.: Researches on the site of ancient Nippur.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN EXPLORATION.

HINTCHAK, The.

See (in this volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1895.

HINTERLAND.

A German word which has come into general use to describe unnamed and poorly defined regions lying behind, or on the inland side, of coast districts, in Africa more especially, which have been occupied or claimed by European powers.

HISTORICAL DISCOVERIES, Recent.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH.

HOAR, Senator George F.: Action to recover the manuscript of Bradford's History.

See (in this volume) MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1897.

HOAR, Senator George F.: Speech in opposition to the retention of the Philippine Islands as a subject State.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (APRIL).

HOBART, Garret A.: Vice President of the United States. Death.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1899 (November).

HOBOKEN, Great fire at.

On the 30th of June, 1900, between 200 and 300 people lost their lives in a fire which destroyed the pier system of the North German Lloyd steamship line, at Hoboken, N. J. The fire wrecked three of the large ships of the company, and is said to have been the most destructive blaze that ever visited the piers and shipping of the port of New York. An estimate placed the loss of life at nearly 300, and the damage to property at about $10,000,000, but the company's estimate of the loss of life and the value of the property wiped out was considerably less. The fire started in some cotton on one of the four large piers at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. In a few minutes the pier on which it broke out was enveloped in flames, and in six minutes the whole pier system was burning. The flames spread so quickly that many men on the piers and on the vessels, lighters and barges were hemmed in before they realized that their lives were in danger.

HOBSON, Lieutenant Richmond Pearson: The sinking of the collier Merrimac at Santiago.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-JUNE).

HOLLAND.

See (in this volume) NETHERLANDS, THE KINGDOM OF THE.

HOLLS, Frederick W.: American Commissioner to the Peace Conference at The Hague.

See (in this volume) PEACE CONFERENCE.

HOLY YEAR 1900, Proclamation of the Universal Jubilee of the, Its extension.

See (in this volume) PAPACY: A. D. 1900-1901.

HONDURAS.

See (in this volume) CENTRAL AMERICA.

HONG KONG: A. D. 1894. The Bubonic Plague.

See (in this volume) PLAGUE.

HONG KONG: A. D. 1898. British lease of territory on the mainland.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-AUGUST).

HORMIGUEROS, Engagement at.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-AUGUST: PORTO RICO).

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The United States: The "Spoils System" in its service.

See (in this volume) CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1901.

HOVA, The.

See (in this volume) MADAGASCAR.

HUA SANG, Massacre of missionaries at.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).

HUDSON BAY, Investigation of.

See (in this volume) POLAR EXPLORATION, 1897.

HUMBERT I., King of Italy: Assassination.

See (in this volume) ITALY: A. D. 1899-1900; and 1900 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

HUNGARY.

See ((in this volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

HUSBANDISTS, The.

See (in this volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).

I.

ICELAND, Recent exploration of.

See (in this volume) POLAR EXPLORATION, 1898-1899.

IDAHO: A. D. 1896. Adoption of Woman Suffrage.

On the 11th of December, 1896, an amendment of the constitution of Idaho, extending the suffrage to women, was submitted to the then voters of the State, and carried by 12,126, against 6,282. Though carried by a large majority of the votes given on the suffrage issue, it did not receive a majority of the whole vote cast on other questions at the same election; but the supreme court of the State decided that the amendment had been adopted.

I-HO-CH'UAN, The.

See (in this volume) CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JANUARY-MARCH).

ILLINOIS: A. D. 1898. Strike of coal miners. Bloody conflict at Virden.

See (in this volume) INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1898.

ILOCANOS, The.

See (in this volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: THE NATIVE INHABITANTS.

ILOILO: The American occupation of the city.

See (in this volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).

ILORIN, British subjugation of.

See (in this volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1897 (NIGERIA).

IMPERIAL BRITISH EAST AFRICA COMPANY: Transfer of territory to the British Government.

See (in this volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (BRITISH EAST AFRICA).

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE: Meeting of British Colonial Prime Ministers at the Colonial Office, London.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE-JULY).

IMPERIALISM: The question in American politics.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (APRIL); and (MAY-NOVEMBER).

{260}

INCOME TAX: Decision against by United States Supreme Court.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (APRIL-MAY).

INDIA: A. D. 1894. The Waziri War.

A fierce attempt to interrupt the demarcation of the Afghan boundary was made by the Waziris. The escort of 5,000 troops, consisting mainly of Sikhs and Goorkhas, was desperately attacked in camp at Wano, November 3. The attack was repulsed, but with heavy loss on the British side. It became afterwards necessary to send three strong columns into the country, under Sir William Lockhart, in order to carry out the work.

INDIA: A. D. 1895 (March-September). The defense and relief of Chitral. The British frontier advanced.

At the extreme northwestern limit of British-Indian dominion and semi-dominion, under the shadow of the lofty Hindu-Kush mountains, lie a group of quasi-independent tribal states over which the Amir of Afghanistan claimed at least a "sphere of influence" until 1893. In that year the Amir and the Government of India agreed upon a line which defined the eastern and southern frontier of Afghanistan, "from Wakhan to the Persian border," and agreed further as follows: "The Government of India will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of Afghanistan, and his Highness the Amir will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of India. The British Government thus agrees to his Highness the Amir retaining Asmar and the valley above it, as far as Chanak. His Highness agrees, on the other hand, that he will at no time exercise interference in Swat, Bajaur, or Chitral, including Arnawai or Bashgal valley." Under this agreement, the Indian Government prepared itself to be watchful of Chitral affairs. The little state was notoriously a nest of turbulence and intrigue. Its rulers, who bore the Persian title of Mehtar, signifying "Greater," can never have expected to live out their days. Changes of government were brought about commonly by assassination. The reigning prince, Nizam-ul-Mulk, owed his seat to the murder of his father, Aman-ul-Mulk, though not by himself. In turn, he fell, on New Year's day, 1895, slain at the instigation of his half-brother, Amir-ul-Mulk, who mounted the vacant chair of state. The usurper was then promptly assailed by two rivals, one of them his brother-in-law, Umra Khan, a mountain chieftain of Bajaur, the other an uncle, Sher Afzul, who had been a refugee at Kabul. On the news of these occurrences at Chitral, the Government of India sent thither, from Gilgit, its political agent, Surgeon-Major Robertson, with a small escort, to learn the state of affairs.

The result of Dr. Robertson's attempt to settle matters was an alliance of Umra Khan and Sher Afzul in a desperate attempt to destroy him and his small force of native troops, which had five English officers at its head. The latter took possession (March 1) of the fort at Chitral, a structure about 80 yards square, walled partly with wood, and so placed in a valley that it was commanded from neighboring hills. In this weak fortification the little garrison held off a savage swarm of the surrounding tribes during 46 days of a siege that is as thrilling in the story of it as any found in recent history. The first reinforcements sent to Dr. Robertson, from near Gilgit, were disastrously beaten back, with the loss of the captain in command and 50 of his men. As speedily as possible, when the situation was known in India, an army of about 14,000 men was made ready at Peshawur, under the command of Major-General Sir Robert Low, and relieving columns were pushed with great difficulty through the Malakand Pass, then filled deep with snow. A smaller force, of 600 men, under Colonel Kelly, fought its way from Gilgit, struggling through the snows of a pass 12,000 feet above the level of the sea. Colonel Kelly was the first to reach Chitral, which he did on the 20th of April. The besiegers had fled at his approach. The beleaguered garrison was found to have lost 40 killed and 70 wounded, out of its fighting force of about 370 men. Sher Afzul was caught by the Khan of Dir, who led 2,000 of his followers to the help of the British. Umra Khan escaped to Kabul, where he was imprisoned by the Amir. Shuja-ul-Mulk, a younger brother of Amir-ul-Mulk was declared Mehtar. The question whether British authority should be maintained in Chitral or withdrawn was now sharply debated in England; but Lord Salisbury and his party, coming into power at that moment, decided that the advanced frontier of Indian Empire must be held. The young Mehtar was installed in the name of the Maharaja of Kashmir as his suzerain, and the terms under which his government should be carried on were announced at his installation (September 2, 1895) by the British Agent, as follows:

"The general internal administration of the country will be left in the hands of the Mehtar and of his advisers. The Government of India do not intend to undertake themselves the management of the internal affairs of Chitral, their concern being with the foreign relations of the State, and with its general welfare. It, however, has to be remembered that Shuja-ul-Mulk is only a boy, and that, at an age when other boys are engaged in education and amusement, he has been called upon to hold the reins of State. Bearing this fact in mind, the Government of India recognise the necessity of his receiving some help during the time of his minority, and it has consequently been decided to leave at Chitral an experienced Political Officer upon whom the Mehtar may always call for advice and assistance, while it is proposed to appoint three persons, Raja Bahadur Khan, the Governor of Mastuj, Wazir Inayat Khan and Aksakal Fateh Ali Shah, to give him help, instruction and advice in the management of his State and in the laws and customs of the people. Ordinarily the entire country will be governed in accordance with their experience and judgment; but nevertheless the Assistant British Agent, if he thinks it necessary to do so, may, at any time, ask the Mehtar to delay action recommended by his three advisers, until the opinion of the British Agent at Gilgit has been obtained, whose decision shall be final and authoritative.

{261}

"The desirability of abolishing traffic in slaves is a matter to which the Government of India attach much importance, and that they have lately interested themselves with some success in procuring the release of Natives of Kashmir and her dependencies, including Chitralis, who are held in bondage in Chinese Turkistan. It is in accordance therefore with the general policy of the Government of India that in Chitral also all buying and selling of slaves, whether for disposal in the country or with the intention of sending them abroad, should be altogether prohibited. Any such selling of slaves is therefore from this time forward absolutely illegal."

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications: Papers by Command, 1896 (C.-8037)._

Also in: _C. Lowe, The Story of Chitral (Century magazine, volume 55, page 89)._

INDIA: A. D. 1895 (April). Report of the Opium Commission.

"The long-deferred publication of the report of this commission was made in April, and the report was signed by eight out of nine members of the commission. The commissioners declared that it had not been shown to be necessary, or to be demanded by the people, that the growth of the poppy and the manufacture of opium in British India should be prohibited. Such a prohibition, if extended to the protected States, would be an unprecedented act of interference on the part of the paramount Power, and would be sure to be resisted by the chiefs and their people. The existing treaties with China in regard to the importation of Indian opium into that country had been admitted by the Chinese Government to contain all they desired. The evidence led the commissioners to the conclusion that the common use of opium in India is moderate, and its prohibition is strongly opposed by the great mass of native opinion."

_Annual Register, 1895, pages 337-338._

INDIA: A. D. 1896-1897. Famine in northwestern and central provinces.

A failure of rains, especially in northwestern and central India, produced the inevitable consequence of famine, lasting with awful severity from the spring of 1896 until the autumn of 1897. In December of the former year there were 561,800 persons employed on relief works which the Indian government organized. In the following March the number had risen to more than three millions, and in June it exceeded four millions. Rain fell in July, and August, and the distress began soon afterwards to grow less. In addition to the heavy expenditures of the government, the charitable contributions for the relief of sufferers from this famine were officially reported to have amounted to 1,750,000 pounds sterling ($8,750,000).

INDIA: A. D. 1896-1900. The Bubonic Plague.

See (in this volume) PLAGUE.

INDIA: A. D. 1897. Change in the government of Burmah.

See (in this volume) BURMAH: A. D. 1897.

INDIA: A. D. 1897. Rejection of American proposals for a reopening of mints to silver.

See (in this volume) MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

INDIA: A. D. 1897-1898. Frontier wars.

From the early summer of 1897 until beyond the close of the year, the British were once more seriously in conflict with the warlike tribes of the Afghan frontier. The risings of the latter were begun in the Tochi Valley, on the 10th of June, when a sudden, treacherous attack was made by Waziri tribesmen on the escort of Mr. Gee, the political agent, at the village of Maizar. A number of officers and men were killed and wounded, and the whole party would have been destroyed if timely reinforcements had not reached them. Over 7,000 troops were subsequently employed in the suppression and punishment of this revolt. The next outbreak, in the Swat Valley, was more extensive. It was ascribed to the preaching of a fanatical Mohammedan priest, known as "the mud mullah," who labored to excite a religious war, and was opened, July 26, by a night attack on the British positions at Malakand and Chakdarra. The latter outpost, guarding the bridge over the Swat river, on the road to Chitral, was held by a small garrison of less than 300 men, who were beleaguered for a considerable time before relief came. According to an official return of "wars and military operations on or beyond the borders of British India in which the Government of India has been engaged," made to Parliament on the 30th of January, 1900, there were 11,826 troops employed in the operations immediately consequent on this rising, with the result that "the insurgents were defeated and the fanatical gatherings were dispersed; large fines were taken in money and arms." But other neighboring tribes either gave help to the Swats or were moved to follow their example, and required to be subdued, their countries traversed by punitive expeditions and "fines of money and arms" collected. Before the year closed, these tasks employed 6,800 men in the Mohmand country, 3,200 in the Utman Khel country, 7,300 in the Buner country, 14,231 in the Kurram Valley; and then came the most serious business of all. The Afridis, who had been subsidized by the government of India for some years, as guardians of the important Khyber Pass, were suddenly in arms against their paymasters, in August, destroying the Khyber posts. This serious hostility called nearly 44,000 British-Indian troops into the field, under General Sir William Lockhart, whose successful campaign was not finished until the following spring. The most serious engagement of the war with the Afridis was fought at the village of Dargai, October 18. The final results of the campaign are thus summarized in the return mentioned above: "British troops traversed the country of the tribes, inflicting severe loss on the tribesmen, who were ultimately reduced to submission: they paid large fines in money and arms, and friendly relations have since been restored."

_Great Britain, House of Commons Reports and Papers, 1900, 13._

INDIA: A. D. 1898. Discovery of the birthplace and the tomb of Gautama Buddha.

See (in this volume) BUDDHA.

INDIA: A. D. 1898 (September). Appointment of Lord Curzon to the Viceroyalty.

In September, 1898, the Right Hon. George N. Curzon, lately Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was appointed Viceroy and Governor-General of India, to succeed the Earl of Elgin. In the following month, Mr. Curzon was raised to the peerage, as Baron Curzon of Kedleston.

INDIA: A. D. 1899-1900. Famine again.

There was a recurrence of drought and famine in 1899, far more extensive than that of 1896-1897; producing more death and suffering, and calling out more strenuous exertions for its relief. The regions afflicted were largely the same as two years before, embracing much of northwestern and central India. The relief measures which it demanded were carried far into the summer of 1900. In October of the latter year Lord Curzon, the Viceroy, addressing the Legislative Council at Simla, and reviewing the experience through which the government and the country had passed, made some important statements of fact:

{262}

"In a greater or less degree," he said, "nearly one-fourth of the entire population of the Indian continent came within the range of the relief operations. The loss occasioned may be roughly put in this way. The annual agricultural production of India and Burma averages in value between 300 and 400 crores of rupees [the crore being ten millions, and the rupee equivalent to about one-third of a dollar]. On a very cautious estimate the production of 1899-1900 must have been at least one-quarter, if not one-third, below the average, or at normal prices 75 crores, or £50,000,000 sterling. If to this be added the value of some millions of cattle, some conception may be formed of the destruction of property which great drought occasions. There have been many great droughts in India, but no other of which such figures could be predicated as these. …

"If a special characteristic can be attributed to our campaign of famine relief in the past year, it has been its unprecedented liberality. There is no parallel in the history of India or any country of the world to the total of over 6,000,000 persons who, in British India and the native States for weeks on end, have been dependent upon the charity of the Government. The famine cost ten crores in direct expenditure, while 238 lakhs were given to landholders and cultivators on loans and advances, besides loans to native States. … There has never been a famine when the general mortality has been less, when the distress has been more amply or swiftly relieved, or when the Government and its officers have given themselves with more whole-hearted devotion to the saving of life and the service of the people. It is impossible to tell the actual mortality, but there has apparently been an excess of mortality over the normal of 750,000. Cholera and smallpox have accounted for 230,000, which is probably below the mark, so that the excess in British India has equalled 500,000 during the year. To say that the greater part of these died of starvation or even of destitution would be an unjustifiable exaggeration, since many other contributory causes have been at work."

Referring to the charitable help received from various parts of the world, Lord Curzon said: "In 1896-1897 the total collections amounted to 170 lakhs [the lakh being 100,000 rupees] of which 10 lakhs remained over at the beginning of the recent famine. In the present year the Central Relief Committee has received a sum of close upon 140 lakhs, not far short of £1,000,000 sterling. To analyze the subscriptions: India has contributed about the same amount to the fund as in 1896-1897—namely, 32 lakhs. If the contributions from the European community are deducted, India may be considered to have contributed less than one-fifth of the total collections of 140 lakhs. More might have been expected from the native community as a whole, notwithstanding individual examples of remarkable generosity. The little colony of the Straits Settlements, which has no connexion with India beyond that of sentiment, has given more than the whole Punjab. A careful observation of the figures and proceedings in each province compels me to say that native India has not yet reached as high a standard of practical philanthropy and charity as might reasonably be expected. … The collections from abroad amounted to 108 lakhs, as against 137 in 1896-1897. The United Kingdom's contribution of 88½ lakhs compared indifferently with its contribution of 123 lakhs in 1896-1897, but in the circumstances of the year it is a noble gift. Glasgow has been especially generous with a donation of 8¼ lakhs and Liverpool with 4½, in addition to nearly 16 lakhs from the rest of Lancashire. Australasia has given nearly 8 lakhs in place of 2 lakhs. The Straits Settlements, Ceylon, and Hong-Kong have also been extremely generous. Even the Chinese native officials have collected handsome sums. The liberal donation of Germany at the instigation of the Emperor has already been publicly acknowledged. The United States, both through direct contributions to the fund and by means of privately-distributed gifts of money and grain, have once more shown their vivid sympathy with England's mission and India's need."

INDIA: A. D. 1901. Census of the Empire. Decrease of population in several of the Native States.

The Indian census, begun on the 1st of March, 1901, was completed for the entire empire in fourteen days, the result being announced on the 15th. It showed a total population in British territory of 231,085,000, against 221,266,000 in 1891; in Native States 63,181,000, against 66,050,000 in 1891; total for all India, 294,266,000, against 287,317,000 in 1891. The Native States, it will be seen, have declined in population to the extent of nearly 3,000,000, showing greater severity in those states of the effects of famine and disease. In several provinces, however, of the British territory, a decrease of population appears: Berar declining from 2,897,000 in 1891 to 1,491,000 in 1901; Bombay (British Presidency) from 15,957,000 to 15,330,000; Central Provinces from 10,784,000 to 9,845,000; Aden from 44,000 to 41,000; Coorg from 173,000 to 170,000. Of the Native States the greatest loss of population was suffered in Rajputana, which sank from 12,016,000 to 9,841,000; in Central India, where the numbers fell from 10,318,000 to 8,501,000; and in the Bombay States, which were reduced in population from 8,059,000 to 6,891,000. The provinces in British India which show the greatest percentage of gain are Upper and Lower Burma, Assam and Sind. The present population of the greater British provinces is as follows: Bengal, 74,713,000; Madras, 38,208,000; Northwest provinces, 34,812,000; Punjab, 22,449,000.

INDIA: A. D. 1901 (February). Continued famine.

On the 24th of January, 1901, the Viceroy of India reported to the British Government, by telegram, that the winter rainfall had been unusually good in Upper India, Rajputana, Central Provinces, and Central India, and agricultural prospects were very favorable: but that in Gujarat, Deccan, and the Karnatik districts of Bombay, through the early cessation of the monsoon in September and the absence of rain, the crop prospects were bad and serious distress was expected between then and August. Relief measures would be required. The affected district included Baroda and part of Haidarabad. On the 14th of February the Viceroy reported further that the number on the relief works and gratuitous relief showed little increase, but greater pressure was expected in the affected area after the reaping of the scanty harvests there. {263} In Upper and Central India some damage by storm and damp had been done to crops which promised to be very good. The number of persons then in receipt of relief was:

Bombay, 176,000; Bombay Native States, 17,000; Baroda, 15,000; Haidarabad, 2,000; Madras, 3,000; Central India States, 1,000. Total, 214,000.

INDIA: A. D. 1901 (February). Creation of a new administrative province on the northwestern frontier.

A despatch from Calcutta, February 13, announced the determination of the government of India to create "a new frontier agency or province, formed out of the four trans-Indus districts of the Punjab, under an Agent to the Governor-General of similar status to the Agent in Baluchistan, with revenue and judicial commissioners, all the officers being under the Supreme Government and enrolled in the Political Department. The districts which form the new province will be Peshawar, Kohat, Bannu, and Dera Ismail Khan, with the tribal country beyond their limits, and also the existing political agencies of Dir, Swat, Chitral, the Khaibar, the Kuram, Tochi, and Wana. The scheme takes as little as possible away from the Punjab, while making a compact charge, easily controllable by one officer."

INDIA: A. D. 1901 (February). Message of King Edward VII. to the princes and people.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

INDIANAPOLIS CONVENTION, and Monetary Commission, The.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896-1898.

INDIANS, The American: A. D. 1893-1899. Negotiations and agreements with the Five Civilized Tribes. Work of the Dawes Commission.

In his annual Message to the Congress of the United States, December 7, 1896, President Cleveland made the following reference to the work of a commission created in 1893, for negotiating with what are known as the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians: "The condition of affairs among the Five Civilized Tribes, who occupy large tracts of land in the Indian Territory and who have governments of their own, has assumed such an aspect as to render it almost indispensable that there should be an entire change in the relations of these Indians to the General Government. This seems to be necessary in furtherance of their own interests, as well as for the protection of non-Indian residents in their territory. A commission organized and empowered under several recent laws is now negotiating with these Indians for the relinquishment of their courts and the division of their common lands in severalty, and are aiding in the settlement of the troublesome question of tribal membership. The reception of their first proffers of negotiation was not encouraging, but through patience and such conduct on their part as demonstrated that their intentions were friendly and in the interest of the tribes the prospect of success has become more promising. The effort should be to save these Indians from the consequences of their own mistakes and improvidence and to secure to the real Indian his rights as against intruders and professed friends who profit by his retrogression. A change is also needed to protect life and property through the operation of courts conducted according to strict justice and strong enough to enforce their mandates. As a sincere friend of the Indian, I am exceedingly anxious that these reforms should be accomplished with the consent and aid of the tribes and that no necessity may be presented for radical or drastic legislation."

_United States, Message and Documents (Abridgment, 1896-1897)._

The Act of March 3, 1893, by which the commission was created, set forth its character, its duties and its powers, as follows: "The President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint three commissioners to enter into negotiations with the Cherokee Nation, the Choctaw Nation, the Chickasaw Nation, the Muscogee (or Creek) Nation, the Seminole Nation, for the purpose of extinguishment of the national or tribal title to any lands within that territory now held by any and all of such nations or tribes, either by cession of the same or some part thereof to the United States, or by the allotment and division of the same in severalty among the Indians of such nations or tribes, respectively, as may be entitled to the same, or by such other method as may be agreed upon between the several nations and tribes aforesaid, or each of them, with the United States, with a view to such an adjustment, upon the basis of justice and equity, as may, with the consent of such nations or tribes of Indians, so far as may be necessary, be requisite and suitable to enable the ultimate creation of a State or States of the Union which shall embrace the lands within said Indian Territory. …

"Such commissioners shall, under such regulations and directions as shall be prescribed by the President, through the Secretary of the Interior, enter upon negotiation with the several nations of Indians as aforesaid in the Indian Territory, and shall endeavor to procure, first, such allotment of lands in severalty to the Indians belonging to each such nation, tribe, or band, respectively, as may be agreed upon as just and proper to provide for each such Indian a sufficient quantity of land for his or her needs, in such equal distribution and apportionment as may be found just and suited to the circumstances; for which purpose, after the terms of such an agreement shall have been arrived at, the said commissioners shall cause the land of any such nation, or tribe, or band to be surveyed and the proper allotment to be designated; and, secondly, to procure the cession, for such price and upon such terms as shall be agreed upon, of any lands not found necessary to be so allotted or divided, to the United States; and to make proper agreements for the investment or holding by the United States of such moneys as may be paid or agreed to be paid to such nation, or tribes, or bands, or to any of the Indians thereof, for the extinguishment of their [title?] therein. But said commissioners shall, however, have power to negotiate any and all such agreements as, in view of all the circumstances affecting the subject, shall be found requisite and suitable to such an arrangement of the rights and interests and affairs of such nations, tribes, bands, or Indians, or any of them, to enable the ultimate creation of a Territory of the United States with a view to the admission of the same as a State in the Union."

{264}

A subsequent Act, of March 2, 1895, authorized the appointment of two additional members of the commission; and an Act of June 10, 1896, provided that "said commission is further authorized and directed to proceed at once to hear and determine the application of all persons who may apply to them for citizenship in any of said nations, and after said hearing they shall determine the right of said applicant to be so admitted and enrolled. … That the said commission … shall cause a complete roll of citizenship of each of said nations to be made up from their records, and add thereto the names of citizens whose right may be conferred under this act, and said rolls shall be, and are hereby, made rolls of citizenship of said nations or tribes, subject, however, to the determination of the United States courts, as provided herein."

A further Act of Congress, known as the Curtis Act, June 28, 1898, ratified, with some amendments, an agreement made by the commission with the Choctaws and Chickasaws, in April. 1897, and with the Creeks in September of that year, to become effective if ratified by a majority of the voters of those tribes at an election held prior to December 1, 1898. In the annual report, for 1899, made by the commission (of which the Honorable Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts, is chairman, and which is often referred to as "the Dawes Commission,") the following account of results is given: "A special election was called by the executives of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations to be held August 24, and the votes cast were counted in the presence of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes at Atoka, August 30, resulting in the ratification of the agreement by a majority of seven hundred ninety-eight votes. Proclamation thereof was duly made, and the 'Atoka agreement,' so called, is therefore now in full force and effect in the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations. Chief Isparhecher of the Creeks was slow to call an election, and it was not until November 1, 1898, that the agreement with that tribe was submitted in its amended form for ratification. While no active interest was manifested, the full-bloods and many of the freedmen were opposed to the agreement and it failed of ratification by about one hundred and fifty votes. …

"The Cherokees now began to realize the sensations of 'a man without a country,' and again created a commission at a general session of the national council in November, 1898, clothed with authority to negotiate an agreement with the United States. The earlier efforts of this commission to conclude an agreement with that tribe were futile, owing to the disinclination of the Cherokee commissioners to accede to such propositions as the Government had to offer. The commission now created was limited in its power to negotiate to a period of thirty days. The United States Commission had advertised appointments in Mississippi extending from December 19, 1898, to January 7, 1899, for the purpose of identifying the Mississippi Choctaws, a duty imposed upon the commission by the act of June 28, 1898, but on receiving a communication from the chairman of the Cherokee Commission requesting a conference it was deemed desirable to postpone the appointments in Mississippi and meet the Cherokee Commission, which it did on December 19, 1898, continuing negotiations until January 14, 1899, producing the agreement which is appended hereto. In the meantime the Creeks had, by act of council, created another commission with authority to negotiate an agreement with the United States, and a conference was accorded it immediately upon conclusion of the negotiations with the Cherokees, continuing to February 1, 1899, when an agreement was concluded. The agreement with the Cherokees was ratified by the tribe at a special election held January 31, 1899, by a majority of two thousand one hundred six votes, and that with the Creeks on February 18, 1899, by a majority of four hundred eighty-five.

"While these agreements do not in all respects embody those features which the commission desired, they were the best obtainable, and the result of most serious, patient, and earnest consideration, covering many days of arduous labor. The commissions were many times on the point of suspending negotiations, there having arisen propositions upon the part of one of the commissions which the other was unwilling to accept. Particularly were the tribal commissioners determined to fix a maximum and minimum value for the appraisement of lands, while this commission was equally vigorous in its views that the lands should be appraised at their actual value, excluding improvements, without limitations in order that an equal division might be made. The propositions finally agreed upon were the result of a compromise, without which no agreement could have been reached. The desirability, if not the absolute necessity, of securing a uniform land tenure among the Five Tribes leads the commission to recommend that these agreements, with such modifications and amendments as may be deemed wise and proper, be ratified by Congress. …

"The Choctaw and Chickasaw governments, in a limited way, are continued, by agreement, to March 4, 1906, and certain of their laws are therefore effective within the territory of those tribes. A similar condition exists as to the Seminoles, with which an agreement was concluded at the close of the year 1897. To supply needed laws to replace various tribal statutes which had by Congress been made inoperative, the laws of Arkansas pertaining to certain matters have been extended over Indian Territory. The Federal laws have been made to apply to still other subjects, and officials under the Interior Department are charged with the enforcement of rules and regulations governing still further matters, and so on. So complicated and complex a state of affairs does this system of jurisprudence present that the people are dazed and often unable to determine what is law and who is authorized to enforce it. Indeed, none other than an able lawyer can reasonably hope to understand the situation, and even he must be content to look upon certain phases of it as not being susceptible of solution.

"Conditions are not yet ripe for the immediate installation of a Territorial or State government. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished,' but wholly impracticable at this time for various reasons, not the least of which is found in the fact that there are four non-citizens in Indian Territory to every citizen. The non-citizen does not own a foot of soil, save as provisions have recently been made for the segregation and sale of town sites, and with a voice in legislation, the non-citizen would soon legislate the Indian into a state of innocuous desuetude. On the other hand, it would be manifestly unjust and at ill-accord with the spirit of our institutions to deny the right of franchise to so great a number of people, in all respects otherwise entitled to enjoy that prerogative. {265} Another very serious obstacle to the establishment of a territorial form of government is the lack of uniform land tenures. The commission indulges in the hope and belief that at no great distant date some method may be devised whereby the lands of all the Five Tribes may be subjected to a uniform tenure. It will be seen that the legislative feature of the popular form of government is not possible at this time, and while legislation by Congress for all the petty needs of the Territory is impracticable in the highest degree, the more urgent requirements of the people must be met by this means for the present. The judicial branch is well represented by the United States courts. …

"The commission, in conclusion, most earnestly urges the importance of adequate appropriations for pushing to an early completion the work contemplated by the various laws and agreements under which a transformation is to be wrought in Indian Territory. The all-important and most urgent duty now devolving upon the Government of the United States incident to the translation of conditions among the Five Tribes is the allotment of lands in severalty, and the most pressing and essential preliminary steps toward that end are the completion of citizenship rolls, the appraisement of lands, and the subdivision of sections into forty-acre tracts, all of which have been already discussed in detail in this report. The commission believes that the enrollment of citizens is progressing as rapidly as the nature of the work will permit, and unless some unforeseen obstacle arises to prevent, the rolls in four of the nations will be completed and delivered to the Secretary during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, and very material progress made in the fifth."

_Sixth Annual Report of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, 1899, page 66-67, and 9-29._

INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1898. Outbreak in northern Minnesota.

An alarming outbreak of hostility on the part of some of the Indians of the Leech Lake Reservation in northern Minnesota occurred in October, 1898, provoked, as was afterwards shown, by gross frauds and abuses on the part of certain of the officials with whom they had to deal. They had been shamefully defrauded in the sale of their timber lands, which the government assumed to undertake for their benefit; but the immediate Cause of trouble appeared to be a scandalous practice on the part of deputy marshals, who made arrests among them for trivial reasons, conveyed prisoners and witnesses to the federal court at St. Paul, in order to obtain fees and mileage, and left them to make their way home again as they could. The outbreak began on the arrest of a chief of the Pillager band of Chippewas, on Bear Island. He was to be taken to St. Paul as a witness in a case of alleged whiskey-selling; but his followers rescued him. The marshal, thereupon, called for military aid, and a company of United States infantry was sent to the Reservation. They were ambuscaded by the Indians and suffered a loss of 5 killed and 16 wounded. The Pillager band was joined by Indians from neighboring tribes, and all in the region were dangerously excited by the event, while the whites were in great dread of a general Indian war. But reinforcements of troops were promptly sent to the scene, and peace was soon restored,—measures being taken to remedy the wrongs of which the Indians complained.

INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1899-1900. The recent Indian policy of the government, and its results. Indian schools and education. Present Indian population.

"This, then, is the present Indian policy of the nation,—to fit the Indian for civilization and to absorb him into it. It is a national work. It is less than twenty-five years since the government turned from the policy of keeping him on reservations, as quiet as possible, out of the way of civilization, waiting, with no excess of patience, for the race to fade out of existence and to cease from troubling. It was in 1877 that the nation made the first appropriation from its own treasury to fit for its own citizenship this portion of the human race living under its own flag and constitution, but without legal status or constitutional immunities. … The first appropriation was a mere pittance of $20,000; it was given only after a hard struggle. But the first step met with encouragement, and the next year the sum was increased to $30,000, and then to $60,000, and in two years more it became $125,000. The policy has at last so grown in public confidence that, while there is still much discussion of the best methods of expenditure, not a word is heard among the lawgivers for its abandonment. It has in the meantime so broadened in its scope that the appropriations for this work have increased from year to year, till this year (1899) it has risen to $2,638,390. … There are now 148 well-equipped boarding schools and 295 day schools, engaged in the education of 24,004 children, with an average attendance of 19,671. How near this comes to including the whole number of children of school age, in a total population of a quarter of a million of Indians, every inquirer can form a pretty close estimate for himself. No one will deny that, at this rate of progress, the facilities for the education of Indian children will soon reach, if they have not already reached, those enjoyed by their white neighbors in the remote regions of the West. The results thus far are of a most encouraging character.

"But the work does not stop with the rising generation of the race; it embraces also the adult Indian. … Soon after the beginning of appropriations for Indian schools, Congress, in what is called the Severalty Act, provided for every Indian capable of appreciating its value, and who chose to take it, a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres to heads of families, and a smaller number to other members, inalienable and untaxable for twenty-five years, to be selected by him on the reservation of his tribe. If he prefer to abandon his tribe and go elsewhere, he may take his allotment anywhere on the public domain, free of charge. No English baron has a safer title to his manor than has each Indian to his homestead. He cannot part with it for twenty-five years without the consent of Congress, nor can the United States, without his consent, be released from a covenant to defend his possession for the same period. This allotment carries with it also all the rights, privileges, and immunities of an American citizen; opens to these Indians, as to all other citizens, the doors of all the courts; and extends to them the protection of all the laws, national and state, which affect any other citizen. Any Indian, if he prefers not to be a farmer, incumbered with one of these homesteads, may become a citizen of the United States, and reside and prosecute any calling in any part of the United States, as securely under this law as anyone else, by taking up his residence separate and apart from his tribe, and adopting the habits of civilized life. Thus every door of opportunity is thrown wide open to every adult Indian, as well as to those of the next generation.

{266}

"This recognition of the home and family as a force in Indian civilization became a part of the present policy of dealing with the race only twelve years ago. These are some of its results: 55,467 individual Indians, including a few under former treaty stipulations, have taken their allotments, making an aggregate of 6,708,628 acres. Of these, 30,000 now hold complete patents to their homes, and the rest are awaiting the perfection and delivery of their title deeds. … Not alone in these statistics are manifest the evidences of permanent advance of the race toward the goal of orderly, self-supporting citizenship. Bloody Indian wars have ceased. The slaughter of warring clans and the scalping of women and children fleeing from burning wigwams are no longer recorded. Geronimo himself has become a teacher of peace. The recent unfortunate difficulty with the Chippewas in Minnesota, caused more by lack of white than of red civilization, is no exception. We are at peace with the Indian all along the border, and the line between the Indian and the white settlements is fast fading out."

_H. L. Dawes, Have we failed with the Indian? (Atlantic Monthly, August, 1899)._

"Indian education is accomplished through the means of nonreservation boarding schools, reservation boarding schools, and reservation and independent day schools, all under complete Government control, State and Territorial public schools, contract day and boarding schools, and mission day and boarding schools. The Indian school system aims to provide a training which will prepare the Indian boy or girl for the every day life of the average American citizen. It does not contemplate, as some have supposed on a superficial examination, an elaborate preparation for a collegiate course through an extended high-school curriculum. The course of instruction in these schools is limited to that usually taught in the common schools of the country. Shoe and harness making, tailoring, blacksmithing, masonry work, plastering, brick making and laying, etc., are taught at the larger nonreservation schools, not, it is true, with the elaborateness of special training as at the great polytechnic institutions of the country, but on a scale suited to the ability and future environment of the Indian. There are special cases, however, where Indian boys are, and have been, trained so thoroughly that their work compares favorably with that of the white mechanic. … Phoenix, Haskell, Albuquerque, and other institutions, have well-organized schools of domestic science, where the girls are practically taught the art of preparing a wholesome meal, such as appears on the tables of persons of moderate means. …

"Nonreservation schools … are as a rule the largest institutions devoted to Indian education. As indicated by their designation, they are situated off the reservations and usually near cities or populous districts, where the object lessons of white civilization are constantly presented to the pupils. They are recruited principally from the day and boarding schools on the reservations. The majority are supported by special appropriations made by Congress, and are adapted to the teaching of trades, etc., in a more extended degree than are schools on the reservations. The largest of these schools is situated at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where there are accommodations for 1,000 pupils; the next largest is at Phoenix, Arizona, with a capacity for 700; the third, at Lawrence, Kansas, and known as Haskell Institute, accommodating 600 pupils. These three large schools are types of their class, and are not restricted in territory as to collection of pupils. Chemawa school, near Salem, Oregon, and Chilocco school, near Arkansas City, Oklahoma, are types of the medium-sized schools, and each has a capacity of 400 pupils. The remainder of the schools are of less capacity and have not been developed so highly. There are altogether 25 of these schools. …

"There are 81 boarding schools located on the different reservations, an increase of 11 over last year. At these institutions the same general line of policy is pursued as at the nonreservation schools. Frequently located far from the centers of civilization, conditions are different, and their conduct must be varied to suit their own special environment. Many were formerly mission schools and army posts, unsuited to Indian school purposes, but by constant modification are being brought into general harmony with the system. … Government day schools are small schools with capacity for 30 or 40 pupils each. As a rule they are located at remote points on the reservations, and are conducted by a teacher and a housekeeper. A small garden, some stock, and tools are furnished, and the rudiments of industrial education are given the boys; and the girls are taught the use of the needle in mending and sewing, and of the washtub in cleanliness. … There were 147 day schools in operation during the year, an increase of 5 over last year."

The number of government schools reported for the year 1900 was 253, total enrollment, 22,124, average attendance, 17,860; contract schools, 32, with an enrollment of 2,806, average attendance, 2,451; public and mission schools, 22, with an enrollment of 1,521, and an average attendance of 1,257; the aggregate being 307 schools, with an enrollment of 26,451, and an average attendance of 21,568. "Statistics of the schools for the New York Indians are not included in the above, for the reason that as they are cared for by the State of New York this office has no jurisdiction over them. … The Indian population of the United States under the control of the Indian Office (excluding the Five Civilized Tribes) was 187,312 in 1899, which would give a scholastic population of between 45,000 and 47,000. Deduct 30 per cent for the sick and otherwise disabled, and those in white schools or away from the direct control of the office, and it would leave about 34,000 children for whom educational facilities should be provided. There are now 26,000 of them in school, leaving about 8,000 unprovided for."

_Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1900, pages 15-23._

{267}

"Taking the concurrent facts of history and experience into consideration, it can, with a great degree of confidence, be stated that the Indian population of the United States has been very little diminished from the days of Columbus, Coronado, Raleigh, Captain John Smith, and other early explorers." The number of Indians in the United States in the year 1900, according to the report of the Indian Office, was 272,023. This excludes "the Indians of Alaska, but includes the New York Indians (5,334) and the Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory (84,750)—a total population of 90,084. These Indians are often separated from the others in statistics because they have separate school and governmental systems."

_Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1900, pages 47-49._

INDONESIAN RACE.

See (in this volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: THE NATIVE INHABITANTS.

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION.

See (in this volume) NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1891-1900; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).

INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS.

See (in this volume) TRUSTS; UNITED STATES.

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, The United States.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES, Wide-spread: A. D. 1895-1896. Strike of glassworkers in France.

A great strike of French glass workers, beginning in the summer of 1895, ended the following January in a lockout of the men, leaving thousands without means of subsistence.

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES, Wide-spread: A. D. 1897. The great dispute in the British engineering trades.

"The strike originated in an effort on the part of some of the men employed in London to introduce the eight-hour day. As a consequence of this movement, the Employers' Federation voted, on July 1st, that in case the threatened movement in favor of eight hours should be carried out 'notices will immediately be given by the members of the associations affiliated to the federation that a reduction of hands of 25 per cent. will take place of the members of such unions in their employment.' This challenge of the employers was quickly taken up by the Unionists. The Amalgamated Society at once gave instructions that in all cases in which notices of lockout were issued to 25 per cent. of their members, the remaining 75 per cent. should hand in notices to cease work at the same time. The result was the inauguration of a dispute, which took in part the form of a lockout, in part that of a strike, but which from the beginning was carried on with an ominous display of bitterness and obstinacy on both sides. The membership of the different societies concerned in the dispute was estimated, by the Labor Gazette in July, at over 109,000. All of these were not, of course, actually on strike. … It seems as if the employers had been quite ready to enter into this contest with the view of crushing the union, or at least of teaching it a lesson; but the result is a very widespread industrial conflict, which is producing results far beyond those immediately concerned."

_Yale Review (November, 1897)._

"The number of work people directly affected by the dispute was about 25,000 at the outset, but as the area of the dispute widened the number of firms and of workmen involved gradually increased, until the lock-out involved 702 firms and 35,000 workmen directly and 12,500 indirectly. … Though the immediate cause of the general dispute was the demand for an eight hours' day in London, the real questions at issue between the parties had become of a much more far-reaching kind, and now involved the questions of workshop control and the limits of trade union interference. During October and November negotiations under the Conciliation Act took place between the Board of Trade and the representatives of the parties with a view to arrange a conference between them. As a result of the correspondence both sides assented to the following basis for a conference suggested by the Board of Trade:

1. The Federated Employers, while disavowing any intention of interfering with the legitimate action of trade unions, will admit no interference with the management of their business. The Trade Unions on their part, while maintaining their right of combination, disavow any intention of interfering with the management of the business of the employers.

2. The notices demanding a 48 hours' week served on the Federated Employers in London without previous request for a conference are withdrawn.

3. A conference between representatives of the Federated Employers and the Trade Unions concerned in the dispute shall be held forthwith. …

Pending the conference the employers agreed to suspend all pending lockout notices, and the Unions not to interfere in any way with men in employment. …

"The sittings were held on November 24th and two following days, and again on November 30th and three following days, after which an adjournment took place until December 14th in order to allow the men to vote as to the acceptance or otherwise of the proposals made by the employers. … When the Conference resumed its sittings on December 14th the result of the ballot of the men was declared to be:—For the terms, 752; against, 68,966. Discussion of the proposals was, however, resumed and continued over four days by a sub-committee of three representatives on each side, who consulted with their colleagues when necessary. The terms were somewhat amended. … On submitting these amended conditions to the vote of the men 1,041 voted in favour of their acceptance and 54,933 against. The truce which had been arranged over the period of negotiations was brought to an end by this vote, and fresh notices of lock-out were given in various centres, which considerably increased the numbers affected. …

"On January 13th, however, an important change was made in the position of the men. The London Joint Committee, the body which took the first actual step in the dispute by ordering strike notices to be given in certain London shops, passed the following resolution:—That we intimate to the Employers' Federation that the demand for an eight hours' day, or forty-eight hours' week be withdrawn. That before such intimation is given the above resolution to be sent to the Executive Councils of the Societies represented on the Joint Committee for their approval or otherwise. … This resolution received the approval of the trade unions concerned, and the withdrawal of the demand for a 48 hours' week was intimated to the Employers' Federation, which, however, still insisted on the acceptance by the unions of the 'conditions of management mutually adjusted at the recent Westminster Conference' as a condition of returning to work. The men asked that the employers' notes and explanations should be read as part of the proposed agreement, and eventually, after renewed negotiations between the parties, a provisional agreement was arrived at and submitted to the votes of the men, who ratified it by 28,588 to 13,727. The final agreement was signed in London on January 28th, and work was resumed in the following week. …

{268}

"Naturally, after so long a stoppage the resumption of work by the men was a gradual process, but the number unemployed owing to the dispute, including those indirectly affected, sank from 44,500 at the close of the lock-out to 7,500 at the end of February, 2,000 at the end of April, 1,500 at the end of May, and 1,000 at the end of June. … Some idea of the indirect effects of the stoppage on trades related to those engaged in the struggle may be formed from the fact that the percentage of unemployed members in trade unions of the ship-building group rose from 4.4 per cent. in July, to 14.1 per cent. in December."

_Great Britain, Board of Trade (Labour Department), Report on the Strikes and Lock-outs of 1897._

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES, Wide-spread: A. D. 1897. Great coal miners' strike in the United States.

A general strike of the coal miners in the various districts of the United States began in July, 1897. The territory covered five states and involved about 157,000 men. The strikers asked for an advance in wages on the ground that it was their right to share in the increase of business prosperity and advanced prices. A grievance for which redress was asked was that of being obliged to buy at the company stores, paying in company's orders, to be deducted from their wages. The principal grievance was the 54-cent rate, paid by Mr. W. P. De Armitt of the New York and Cleveland Gas Coal Company. The men employed by Mr. De Armitt had signed a contract to accept a rate 10 cents below that of other operators, in return for which he had abolished company stores, gave steady employment, and paid promptly in cash. His men were satisfied with the arrangement, although the prevailing price for mining coal was 64 cents a ton. Most of them, however, were finally forced by the organization to join the strikers. The strike lasted until September 12, when matters were arranged in a convention at Columbus, Ohio, when a uniform rate of 65 cents was adopted.

A tragic feature of the strike occurred at Lattimer, Pennsylvania, where a mob of marching miners, resisting the sheriff and handling him roughly, were fired upon by armed deputies. Eighteen were killed and about forty wounded.

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES, Wide-spread: A. D. 1898. New England cotton mill strike.

In January a general strike, affecting 125,000 operatives, resulted from a reduction in wages in 150 cotton mills of New England. By April most of the strikers returned to work at the manufacturers' terms.

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES, Wide-spread: A. D. 1898. Coal miners' strike in Illinois.

This strike, beginning in May, originated in the refusal of the mine operators to grant the rate of 40 cents a ton, agreed upon after the strike of 1897. The operators refused to compromise and the miners were upheld by the United Mine Workers. Riots arose in the towns of Pana and Virden upon the attempt of the mine owners to import negro workers from the south. Governor Tanner, in sending troops to restore order, enjoined upon them to protect citizens, but on no account to assist mine owners to operate their mines with imported labor, The governor's attitude provoked much criticism. A serious outbreak occurred on October 12, at Virden, when 14 persons were killed and 25 wounded. The strike at Virden was settled in November, the mine owners agreeing to the demands of the miners. The trouble at Pana lasted until April, when a settlement was arrived at.

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES, Wide-spread: A. D. 1900. Anthracite coal miners' strike in Pennsylvania.

A great strike of the anthracite mine workers of Pennsylvania, which began September 17, practically ended October 17, when the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company and the Lehigh Valley Coal Company agreed to abolish the sliding scale in their respective regions and to grant an advance in wages of 10 per cent. net, the advance to remain in operation until April 1, 1901, and thereafter till further notice. Mr. John Mitchell, president of the Mine Workers' National Union, in a speech soon after the end of the strike, said that of the 142,000 men concerned "at first only 8,000 men were in the union or organized. Nevertheless, the day the strike began, 112,000 men laid down their tools; and when the strike ended, after 39 days of non-employment, all but 2,000 of them had joined the ranks of the union."

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, in the United States.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897.

INITIATIVE IN SWITZERLAND, The.

See (in this volume) SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894-1898.

INSURANCE, Compulsory, in Germany.

See (in this volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1897-1900.

INTERCONTINENTAL RAILWAY, The.

See (in this volume) RAILWAY, INTERCONTINENTAL.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

See (in this volume) ARBITRATION, INTERNATIONAL.

INTERNATIONAL CATALOGUING, of Scientific Literature.

See (in this volume) SCIENCE, RECENT: SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONGRESS.

An important step in promotion of the development of international commerce was taken at Philadelphia, in October, 1899, by the assembling of an International Commercial Congress, under the auspices of the Philadelphia Commercial Museum and the Franklin Institute, with the co-operation, not only of the city and the State, but also of the Congress of the United States. Some forty governments, and a great number of chambers of commerce and other business organizations were represented, and much good was expected from the meeting. It adopted resolutions urging co-operative and assimilated action by all nations, in the registration of trade marks, in the preparation of trade statistics and agricultural reports, and in the establishing of the parcels post. It commended the Philadelphia Commercial Museum as an example to be imitated; urged the construction of an interoceanic canal, recommended free trade in artistic works, and pleaded for the pacific settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

At the time of the session of the Congress, a National Export Exposition was being held at Philadelphia, under the same auspices, with great success.

{269}

INTEROCEANIC CANAL.

See (in this volume) CANAL, INTEROCEANIC.

INTEROCEANIC RAILWAY, The Tehuantepec.

See (in this volume) MEXICO: A. D. 1898-1900.

INTER-STATE COMMERCE, American. Arbitration of industrial disputes.

See (in this volume) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).

INVENTIONS: Comparison of the Nineteenth Century with preceding ages.

See (in this volume) NINETEENTH CENTURY: COMPARISON.

IRADE.

See (in this volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1895.

----------IRELAND: Start--------

IRELAND: A. D. 1890-1900. Hopeful work in the organization and systematization of Irish agriculture.

"Can nothing be made of an essentially food-producing country situated at the very door of the greatest market for food-stuffs that the world has ever seen? Government has at last moved in this matter, but, as usual, not before private initiation had shamed them into action. Mr. Horace Plunkett and his friends went to work ten years ago, pointing out that Ireland had natural resources equal or superior to those of countries which were driving her few products out of the English market, and preached the organisation, the co-operation, and the scientific methods of agriculture which in those other countries were inculcated and subsidised by state agencies. Then the Congested Districts Board, under the auspices of Mr. Arthur Balfour, began its beneficent work. Then came in 1895 the Recess Committee, on Mr. Plunkett's suggestion; and finally, in 1899, the recommendations of that Committee's invaluable Report were practically embodied in the creation of a Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. This body has scarcely as yet begun its work, but its main business will be to do throughout the whole of Ireland what has been done in the least hopeful districts by the Congested Districts Board, and over a larger area, but with very inadequate means, by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, of which Mr. Plunkett has been the moving spirit. Things are therefore only at their beginning. … The main purpose of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society has been not to create new industries but to organize and systematise the one already existing—the characteristic Irish industry of agriculture. It has done the work which in France, Denmark, Canada, and a dozen other countries that can be named, is being done by a State department; and the efforts of its promoters have brought into being such a department for Ireland also. The Society spent in nine years £15,000 of subscriptions. This neither can last nor ought to last. It is the business of the Department, if it does not supersede the Society, to subsidise it."

_Stephen Gwynn, A Month in Ireland (Blackwood's Magazine, October, 1900, page 573)._

The most effective work done thus far, by the official and private agencies above mentioned, appears to have been in the organization of co-operative creameries and dairies.

IRELAND: A. D. 1894. Cooling of the Liberal party towards Irish Home Rule.

See (in this volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895.

IRELAND: A. D. 1896. A new Land Act.

"The celebrated Land Act of 1881, supplemented by Acts in the same direction, placed the land of Ireland, as everyone knows, under a system of perpetual leases, at State-settled rents, renewable every fifteen years; and, in 1896, the time was at hand for revising the rents fixed from 1881 onwards, and for renewing the leases made during this interval of time. An Act, accordingly, was passed through Parliament in order fully to accomplish this end; and, incidentally, it dealt with many other things connected with the Irish Land System, and with the legislation inaugurated in 1881. It enlarged the sphere of State-settled rent, bringing within it certain classes of tenants which, hitherto, had been excluded from it; it placed the law for exempting tenants' improvements from rent, to a considerable extent, on a new basis; and it introduced, for the first time, what is called the principal of 'compulsory purchase' into the system of 'Land Purchase,' so named in Ireland, always a favourite policy of Lord Salisbury's Governments."

_Judge O'Connor Morris, The Report of the Fry Commission (Fortnightly Review, November, 1898)._

The new bill (59 & 60 Vict. ch. 47) was carried successfully through Parliament by the Government, with skillful management on the part of Mr. Gerald Balfour, the Secretary for Ireland, after many amendments and much debate. It was a compromise measure, reluctantly accepted and satisfying no interest or party. The general feeling with which it was passed is described as follows: "The practical result of the discussion was to show that the bill did not go so far as Mr. T. W. Russell, a member of the Government and the representative of the Ulster farmers, wished; that the section of the Nationalists headed by Mr. Dillon were anxious to throw cold water upon it, but afraid to oppose it openly; and that Mr. Healy and his friends, as well as the Parnellites, were ready to do their best to ensure its passing. But while the representatives of the tenants were ready to accept the bill as an installment of their claims, they at the same time pronounced it, to be inadequate. … The Dillonites were unwilling to give the Healyites and the Parnellites the chance of taunting them with having lost the bill, whilst the landlords hoped for an improvement of the purchase clauses and a reform of procedure in the law courts. … The debate on the third reading, although not forced to a division, was spirited; the landlords opposing it because it was too much of a tenant's bill, and Mr. Davitt opposing it because it was too much of a landlords' bill. Mr. Dillon and his followers voted for it, but in their speeches did all they could to run it down, while the Parnellites and Healyites did all in their power to support it."

_Annual Register, 1896, pages 160-161._

{270}

IRELAND: 1896-1897. Report of a Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland.

"At various times since the passing of the Act of Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, complaints have been made that the financial arrangements between the two countries were not satisfactory, or in accordance with the principles of that Act, and that the resources of Ireland have had to bear an undue pressure of taxation. Inquiries into the truth of these allegations have frequently been called for"; but it was not until 1894 that provision was made for a thorough investigation of the subject. In that year a Royal Commission was appointed, with Mr. Childers, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, at its head, "to inquire into the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and their relative taxable capacity, and to report:

(1.) Upon what principles of comparison, and by the application of what specific standards, the relative capacity of Great Britain and Ireland to bear taxation may be most equitably determined.

(2.) What, so far as can be ascertained, is the true proportion, under the principles and specific standards so determined, between the taxable capacity of Great Britain and Ireland.

(3.) The history of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland at and after the Legislative Union, the charge for Irish purposes on the Imperial Exchequer during that period, and the amount of Irish taxation remaining available for contribution to Imperial expenditure; also the Imperial expenditure to which it is considered equitable that Ireland should contribute."

The Commission made its "Final Report" in 1896, submitting the conclusions on which its members were unanimously agreed, and presenting, further, no less than seven differing reports on other points upon which agreement could not be reached. The summary of conclusions in the unanimous joint report was as follows:

"In carrying out the inquiry we have ascertained that there are certain questions upon which we are practically unanimous, and we think it expedient to set them out in this joint report. Our conclusions on these questions are as follows:

I. That Great Britain and Ireland must, for the purpose of this inquiry, be considered as separate entities.

II. That the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear.

III. That the increase of taxation laid upon Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances.

IV. That identity of rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burden.

V. That whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth."

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications (Papers by Command: C.—8262, pages 1-2)._

The report was keenly criticised in England, and the fact that it emanated from a Commission in which the majority were partisans of Irish Home Rule was used by the Conservatives to disparage its conclusions. A new investigation of the subject was called for. The subject came before Parliament in the session of 1897,—first in the Lords, and later in the Commons. On the 30th of March, Mr. Blake, a member from Ireland, moved a resolution in the House of Commons, to the effect that the report of the Commission had established the existence of an undue burden of taxation on Ireland and made it the duty of the Government to propose remedial legislation at an early day. The debate which this opened was continued during three nights, at the end of which the motion was negatived by a vote of 317 to 157.

IRELAND: A. D. 1898 (July). The Local Government Act.

A bill which had great success, so far as it went, in satisfying the representatives of Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, was brought forward there, by the Conservative Government, in February, 1898, and carried through both Houses in July. It was accepted by the Irish as "no substitute for Home Rule," but as a recognized "step in that direction." It had been foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament, and described as a measure "for the organisation of a system of local government in Ireland substantially similar to that which, within the last few Years, has been established in Great Britain." This important Act established County Councils, Urban District Councils, Rural District Councils, and Boards of Guardians, all elected by ballot every three years, on a franchise broader than the Parliamentary franchise, since it gave the local suffrage to women. The same Act extended to Ireland the provisions of the Act for the relief of agricultural land, and contained some other welcome provisions of financial relief.

_61 & 62 Vict. chapter 37._

"To understand the extent of the change which is now determined on … it is necessary first to describe the system of Irish Local Government which is about to pass away forever. Broadly speaking, that system consisted of three parts, viz.: the Grand Jury, the Poor Law Boards, and various forms of Municipal Government in towns and cities. … The Grand Jury was about the most anomalous and indefensible institution which can be conceived. It consisted, usually, of a couple of dozen persons chosen from a larger number selected by the High Sheriff for the county or the city, as the case might be, the High Sheriff himself being the nominee of the Lord Lieutenant, who acted on the recommendation of the Superior Court Judges, who, in their turn, always recommended some leading landlord and magistrate. … The Grand Jury in every Irish county, down even to the present year, has always consisted almost entirely of members of the landlord class, and mainly of Protestants also. To bodies thus constituted was entrusted the control of all public roads and other public works of the county, the contracts therefor, the management of the prisons, the care of the public buildings, the power to contribute to infirmaries, lunatic asylums and fever hospitals, the appointment of all the paid officials of the county, and the right to levy a tax called the county cess, which, of late years, has produced considerably more than a million pounds sterling annually. Associated with the Grand Juries were smaller bodies, the members of which met at 'Presentment Sessions' once or twice a year to initiate county works. Those bodies also were non-elective, and represented mainly the landlords and magistrates of the respective counties. In the old days, these Grand Juries became—not unnaturally—not merely nests of jobbery and corruption, but an agency of social and political oppression. … {271} For many years past, indeed, the Grand Juries have not been open to all those charges. They have not, as a rule, been the corrupt jobbers they were forty or fifty years ago. Their administration of the business entrusted to them has been fairly honest and efficient. But in their constitution they have, on the whole, continued to be what they were. …

"The Boards of Poor Law Guardians have in the course of time become more or less popular bodies, and, besides their original function of dispensing relief out of the rates to the destitute poor, have been invested with the management of so many other matters in recent years that their title is now really a misnomer. They are, for instance, the sanitary authorities in all rural and in some urban districts; they have to do with the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, and—not to go through the whole list of their powers and duties—they have had the administration of the Laborers' Acts, under which a good deal has been done, since the year 1883, to improve the homes of agricultural laborers.

"It remains to notice the system of Government in the towns and cities. In this case there has been some degree of reality in the phrase, 'local self-government'—at least, for the last forty or fifty years. Down to 1840 there was no really representative system of government in any Irish town or city. … Since the year mentioned the corporations have been more or less representative, and since 1854 the smaller towns in Ireland have been allowed the right to possess municipal institutions of a less important, but still representative, character. In respect, however, of both the corporations of the cities and of the town boards of the smaller civic communities, the franchise for municipal purposes has been ridiculously restricted. In Dublin, the population exceeds 300,000; the Parliamentary electorate is upwards of 40,000; but the municipal electorate amounts to only about 8,000 or 9,000; and the same story is true of all the other municipalities, except a few which, like Belfast, have by special acts of Parliament obtained extensions of the suffrage peculiar to themselves.

"Here, then, was a state of thing's which, assuredly, required mending, and, as I have said, innumerable efforts to mend it had been made up to last year with no result. Last summer, however, the reform now virtually accomplished was announced to the House of Commons one afternoon by Mr. Arthur Balfour, without anyone having asked for it and without any warning whatever. The chief features of the measure may be briefly described. In the first place, the ground is cleared by absolutely sweeping away the Grand Juries for fiscal purposes. Those bodies are still retained for their original purpose—that, namely, of dealing with indictments. … With them go the Boards of Guardians as they are at present constituted. Bodies will still continue to exist under that name, but they will be no longer constituted as they are now. … In the place of the Grand Juries and the Boards of Guardians there has been set up a rather complicated system of County Councils and District Councils, these latter being sub-divided into two classes—Urban District Councils and Rural District Councils; and at this point one provision applicable to all those bodies, and also to every Corporation and Town Board in the country, may be conveniently mentioned. It is that which enacts that the electorate in each case shall be the Parliamentary electorate, in addition to peers and to such women as would, if they were men, be qualified for the Parliamentary franchise. Here is manifestly a great reform in itself. … The change is a vast one, in view of the narrow foundation on which even the most popular Irish local institutions have hitherto rested. It means the transfer of power from a class to the people. It means the ousting of what used to be the English garrison in Ireland from what it had come to regard as its inalienable heritage. It marks the entry of the Irish Nation, after ages of weary waiting, into at least a considerable portion of its birthright. To the County Councils, which will thus repose on a thoroughly popular basis, and one of which will be established in every county, will be entrusted all the fiscal business of the Grand Juries, with one exception. The excepted business is that of assessing compensation for malicious injuries."

_J. J. Clancy, The Latest Reform in Ireland (North American Review, September, 1898)._

IRELAND: A. D. 1900 (April). Visit of Queen Victoria.

For the first time in nearly forty years, Queen Victoria paid a visit to Ireland in April, and held court in Dublin for three weeks, being cordially received and treated throughout with respect by well-mannered crowds. Apparently the visit gave satisfaction to most of the Irish people.

IRELAND: A. D. 1900-1901. Parliamentary elections. Triumph of the United Irish League. Its absorption of the Nationalist party. Its programme.

The elections to a new Parliament (see, in this volume, ENGLAND: A. D. 1900, SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), held in October, resulted in a sweeping victory for the United Irish League, a new organization formed by Mr. William O'Brien, which, according to the "London Times," "has practically absorbed the whole of the Irish Nationalist party" and "is the successor in title of the old Land League." "Mr. William O'Brien," says the "Times," "returned his own followers to Parliament from practically every Nationalist constituency in Ireland. … For the moment at least all the other successors of Mr. Parnell are vanquished or in captivity, and Mr. O'Brien finds himself at the head of a party which for the first time in ten years has the right to call itself 'united.'"

On the opening of the Parliament, in the following February, the new League was soon brought to its attention by Mr. O'Brien, who moved, on the 22d, to amend the Address to the King, which was then under discussion, by adding to it the following: "Humbly to represent to your Majesty that this House has observed that a combination of the agricultural classes in Ireland has been formed, under the name of the United Irish League, with the object of accomplishing reforms which alone, in the opinion of nine-tenths of the constitutional representatives of Ireland, can arrest the continued depopulation of that country and the decay of its only great national industry. {272} These reforms being, first, the creation of an occupying proprietary in substitution for the present unsettled and vexatious system of dual ownership of land; and, secondly, the utilization of extensive tracts, at present lying practically waste in the congested districts, for the purpose of supplying holdings of sufficient extent to a hard-working and deserving population, who for want of land are compelled to live in a condition of chronic privation and even famine on the borders of those fertile depopulated areas; that the movement which has been carried on for the past three years for the promotion of these objects has been marked by the disappearance of those crimes of violence and secret conspiracies which were used to the discredit of all former agrarian combinations in Ireland, and the league, basing itself on the principle that its struggle is in the nature of a great economic industrial dispute between the tillers of the soil on the one side and the rent-owners, supported by a vast capital and territorial influence, on the other, has relied for success upon those combinations for mutual protection and appeals to public opinion which the trade union laws have expressly authorized in the cause of disputes between capital and labour of a non-agricultural character; that, nevertheless, this House has observed that the forces of the Crown have been unconstitutionally employed, and public justice has been polluted in the interest of one of the parties to the dispute; that the right of public meeting has been capriciously suppressed; that prosecutions for conspiracy and Whiteboyism have been instituted in reference to open and advised appeals to public opinion and measures of mutual protection, which are indisputably within the right of trade unions in ordinary industrial struggles; that the power of contempt of Court has been unconstitutionally and oppressively abused for the purpose of inflicting prolonged sentences of imprisonment without trial; that the right of trial by jury has been outraged by the systematic exclusion from the jury-box of all jurors sharing the politics or creed of the accused, and the empanelling of juries composed exclusively of sympathizers with the territorial class, that the liberty of the Press in Ireland has been assailed, and influential organs of opinion prosecuted in the endeavour to silence public comment on this iniquitous system; that grievous and vindictive fines have been exacted from districts obnoxious to the landlord interest by means of charges for extra police quartered upon peaceful populations, and that the people of Ireland have been subjected to divers others the like cruel oppressions and provocations; and humbly to represent to your Majesty that, it being of the highest constitutional import to encourage the Irish people to seek the redress of their grievances by the fullest freedom of speech and of combination which is warranted by the example of the trade unions of Great Britain, this House is of opinion that the attacks at present directed by the Executive against the rights of free speech and of combination in Ireland should cease, and that the legislation protecting the trade unions in the exercise of their rights of combination against capital and non-union labour should be extended to all agricultural combinations of a similar character in that country."

In his speech supporting the amendment Mr. O'Brien charged that, "there being no real crime in Ireland, the Executive there had made crime of perfectly legitimate actions, treating the people as if the object was to goad them into conspiracy and violence. The record of the league was virtually a crimeless one, it had carried on its work now for three years without any of those blood-curdling incidents which coercion Ministers used to smack their lips over in that House. … The league, which had been tested by time and had proved its power at the general election, had started and carried on in Ireland an irresistible agitation for the suppression, for the abolition of landlordism, and had elicited in the King's first Speech a promise, such as it was, of another land Bill, although two years ago that House was assured that there was no longer an Irish land question."

An extensive combination, he said, was going on in Ireland against the taking of evicted farms, and "what form of trade unionism could be more legitimate?" But charges of intimidation and conspiracy; he claimed, were trumped up, and juries were packed, for the suppression of this movement, though it went no farther than trades unions in England could go with no interference. "The Irish people exercised the right of combination in the United Irish League, and they would continue to exercise it whether the Government liked it or not, in order to obtain the land on conditions that would give its cultivators a living wage. In the ranks of the organization were 500,000 farmers and labourers, representing with their families three-fourths of the population of Ireland. Their object was to parcel out the vast grazing lands lying derelict among the cottagers who were starving on their verge. A department of the Government was actually engaged in carrying out the programme of the league, but at such a snail's pace that it would take centuries to make any impression upon the mass of misery which existed in the country."

After several hours of debate the amendment to the Address was rejected by 203 votes against 109.

----------IRELAND: End--------

IRON, Combinations in the production of.

See (in this volume) TRUSTS: UNITED STATES.

IRON GATES OF THE DANUBE, Opening of the.

See (in this volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1896.

ISLE DU DIABLE.

See (in this volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899.

ISRAEL, The People of: Discovery of the sole mention of them in Egyptian inscriptions.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: EGYPT: RESULTS.

ISTHMIAN CANAL, The.

See (in this volume) CANAL, INTEROCEANIC.

ISTHMIAN RAILWAY, The Tehuantepec.

See (in this volume) MEXICO: A. D. 1898-1900.

ITAGAKI, Count: Leader of the Japanese Liberal party.

See (in this volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1890-1898.

{273}

----------ITALY: Start--------

ITALY: Recent archæological explorations.

See (in this volume) ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: ITALY.

ITALY: A. D. 1895-1896. Accusations against the Crispi Ministry. Fresh offense to the Vatican. Disastrous war with Abyssinia. Fall of Crispi.

In elections to the Italian Chamber of Deputies, which took place in May, 1895, the government, under Signor Crispi, was accused of audacious practices, striking the names of opposed electors from the voting lists, to the number, it is said, of several hundreds of thousands, and contriving otherwise to paralyze the opposition to itself. The result of the elections was the return of 336 government candidates, against 98 of other parties. An attempt to obtain an official return of all the deputies who were receiving pay from the State, directly or indirectly, was skilfully baffled by Signor Crispi, and remained a matter of rumor and guess. In September, the government gave fresh offense to the Vatican by an imposing celebration of the 25th anniversary of the entry of the Italian troops into Rome, with a display of the flag of free-masonry. Hostility of France and Russia to Italy was made acute "by the renewal, on the return of Lord Salisbury to office in 1895, of an agreement between England, Austria and Italy for common action in the Eastern question, originally made in 1887. In virtue of this agreement Italy sent her fleet to the Aegean to support Great Britain at the opening of the Armenian question [see, in this volume, TURKEY: A. D. 1895, and after], and the consequence was that France and Russia put pressure on Abyssinia to renew hostilities against Italy. This new campaign Crispi was ill-prepared to meet, as he had detailed a corps d'armée for an expedition to Asia Minor in conjunction with the naval preparations, and the strength of the forces under arms did not enable the minister of war to detach another corps to Erythrea. To complete the difficulties of the position, a coolness arose between the Emperor of Germany and the government of Crispi, the latter having notified the German government that he should at the proper time denounce the Treaty of the Triple Alliance with the object of providing better security for Italian interests in Africa. The Emperor in reply advised the King of Italy that Crispi was becoming importunate and must be got rid of. This defection probably determined the fall of Crispi. It gave such strength to the opposition at home, that the intrigues of the Court and military circles succeeded in paralyzing all his military plans, and especially in preventing him from superseding Baratieri, now recognized as incompetent for the enlarged operations which were in view. The King refused to consent to the suppression until it became imperative through the increase of the force to a point at which a superior officer was necessitated by the regulations, when Baldissera was appointed to the superior command. But before Baldissera could enter on his command, Baratieri, against the distinct orders of the government, attacked with a force of 14,000 men the impregnable positions near Adowah which Menelek held with 80,000. He was met by the most crushing defeat that Italy has had to undergo in modern times. Out of the total force no less than 6,000 perished.

"The history of this affair still remains more or less a secret, the court-martial which followed being rather calculated to bury than expose the facts of the case, but the immediate effect was to induce the ministry to resign without waiting for the assembling of parliament. The magnitude of the disaster made it evident that, considering the Italian temperament and its tendency to panic, the responsibility for it would be visited on the ministry, though it was only responsible in so far as it had submitted to the Royal decision deferring the recall of Baratieri. The King, unwilling to accept the programme of Rudini, gave the formation of the new ministry to General Ricotti, a Senator, Rudini taking the portfolio of home affairs (March, 1896). … The scheme of army reorganization proposed by Ricotti, which aimed at improving the efficiency of the force by devoting money rather to the instruction of the rank and file than to the maintenance of superfluous officers, was opposed, … the law was defeated in the chamber, and Ricotti gave place to Rudini as President of the Council. The rejection of Ricotti's plan was a triumph for the Franco-Russian party, which had re-assumed the direction of foreign affairs. Africa, under this policy, being excluded from the Italian sphere of action, peace was made with Menelek [October 26, 1896] on terms which practically implied withdrawal from Erythrea to the port of Massowah. This measure satisfied the exigencies of the old Right, while the Radicals were conciliated by the exclusion and proscription of Crispi and by the understanding with France, as well as by the reversal of the repressive policy towards the extreme members of their party. Thus the year 1897 saw Italy reduced to inertia abroad and apathy within."

_W. J. Stillman, The Union of Italy,