History for ready reference, Volume 7
Volume VI. of this work (see Libraries). To that fundamental
institution Mr. Carnegie began soon to add auxiliaries, in technical schools, lecture hall, music hall, art galleries, and museum of science, until a great Institute, on which no less than $18,000,000 had been expended and bestowed by the founder was complete. A rededication of this splendid Carnegie Institute, in 1907, was made an impressive event by the presence of a remarkable number of distinguished guests, invited from Great Britain, Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, and the United States. The interesting exercises of the occasion were opened on the 10th of April and continued through three days.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1909. Wanted, in Massachusetts: The right leader for an Educational Revolution.
The State Board of Education in Massachusetts is said to have arrived, as a body, at the conviction, which has been taking possession of many minds in late years, that in the whole educational work of the present day, from primary school to university, "there is much time wasted in learning things of little help in after life, and failure to get the essential character-building"; that conditions are changed so greatly from what they were when the last great educational revolution was led in Massachusetts by Horace Mann, and others, that a new revolution is the imperative need of the day. Hence the State Board of Education is reported to be searching anxiously for a man to fill the lately created office of State Commissioner of Education, who is equal to a revolutionary undertaking. "He must be," says a recent Boston letter, "a broad man, of the right sort to realize the unusual opportunity open to-day." "There is no limit to the salary which the board may offer." "There has been no politics in the board, and there shall be none. {217} All that the Commissioner wants in the way of coöperation to carry out his views he will have." "The board feels that this is a crisis. If the right man can be found, the State’s system will take a step forward toward a better practice, which shall remove the present dissatisfaction and the feeling that the public schools are not fitting children to be good producers or citizens." This opening seems a great one for the right man, if he can be found.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1909. Election of a woman to the Superintendency of the Chicago schools.
Mrs. Ella Flagg Young, elected Superintendent of the public schools of Chicago by the City’s Board of Education, in July, 1909, is the first of her sex to occupy so important an administrative position. Her election is said to have been due entirely to her manifest superiority in qualification over other suggested candidates. The school system she will administer is second only in magnitude to that of the City of New York.
EDUCATION: A. D. 1910. Gift to Yale University by Mrs. Sage.
The following is announced from New Haven on the 10th of January, 1910:
"The recent gift of $650,000 by Mrs. Russell Sage of New York city for the purchase of the Hillhouse property and its transfer free of encumbrance to Yale University releases a corresponding amount without restriction for the use of the university corporation. Important meetings will be held this week, one by the board of Sheffield Scientific School trustees and the other a special meeting of the Yale Corporation to act upon the disposition of the funds released by the Sage gift. It is generally understood that the plan proposed is the erection upon the Hillhouse property of a large biological laboratory, and perhaps the appointment in connection with it of a university professor in biology upon a new foundation."
----------EDUCATION: End--------
EDWARD VII., King of Great Britain, &c.: Proclamation of additional titles.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (NOVEMBER).
EDWARD VII., King of Great Britain, &c.: His illness and deferred Coronation.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JUNE-AUGUST).
EDWARD VII., King of Great Britain, &c.: His agency in bringing about the Entente Cordiale between Great Britain and France.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
EDWARD VII., King of Great Britain, &c.: His influence as a diplomatist.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
EDWARD VII., King of Great Britain, &c.: His Death after a brief illness. Succession of his son, George V.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (MAY).
EGYPT: A. D. 1901-1905. The founding of schools for girls. Training of native teachers.
See (in this Volume ) EDUCATION: EGYPT.
EGYPT: A. D. 1902 (DECEMBER). Completion of the Assuan Dam.
The great Assuan Dam, to control the waters of the Nile, was opened with formal ceremony on the 10th of December, 1902, in the presence of the Duke and Duchess of Connaught, the Khedive, Lord and Lady Cromer, and other distinguished personages. Earlier in the year the value of this important work of engineering had been enhanced by a treaty with the Emperor of Abyssinia or Ethiopia, which forbids constructions on the upper waters of the Nile, within the Abyssinian territory, which would arrest the flow of their waters.
See (in this Volume) ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1902.
EGYPT: A. D. 1904. Declarations of England and France concerning Egypt in the Agreements of the Entente of 1904. Explanatory despatch.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
EGYPT: A. D. 1905-1906. Pan-Islamic preaching. Pro-Turkish movement. Turkish encroachments on the Sinai frontier. The Tabah incident. British fleet at Phalerum. British garrisons reinforced.
"Whether ordered by the Sultan or the result of an instinctive religious wave, anew and definite crusade began to affect Egypt in the summer of 1905. Preachers appeared mysteriously in Cairo and spread rapidly through the country, giving a new and stricter interpretation to texts from the Koran, and preaching in strong terms the wickedness of obeying the infidel. These preachers mixed with the people in their houses and cafes, and in the infinite leisure of a prosperous Oriental country doubtless found no lack of occasion for instilling their new doctrines. Then the Arabic native Press began to preach the same lesson, applying it specially to the Macedonian crisis and the piteous plight of the harassed Sultan. A new spirit came suddenly into political controversy. Any native defender of British rule was marked as a ‘bad Moslem,’ or ‘a traitor to Egypt.’ Argument was impossible; for any doubt of the Sultan was simply impiety. So the work went on bravely through the summer and autumn of 1905, while the British authorities looked on in surprise and perplexity. Lonely residents up country began to notice a change in the tone of the people. They felt the under-swell of a new and mysterious movement of religious feeling. Europeans who understood Arabic heard insolent remarks in the cafes as they passed by, and doctors in charge of invalids in lonely hotels noticed with alarm the sullen looks of their Arab servants, and their keen excitement over the Sultan’s struggle. A spirit of nervous apprehension began to spread abroad among Europeans.
"Then in January, 1906, the Sultan suddenly showed his hand; and the smouldering fire burst out into the flame of the famous Tabah incident. The events that followed became conspicuous to the whole world—the seizure by Turkish troops of villages on the Egyptian side of the Sinai frontier, the threat to fire on an Egyptian cruiser, the defiant resistance to the English successor, the peremptory order to Egypt to evacuate Faroun Island, and, finally, the claim of Mouktar Pasha to a frontier-line west of Suez. The behaviour of Turkey seemed to bear out Rudyard Kipling's description of the ethical atmosphere that lies east of that port. Even where ‘there ain’t no ten commandments,’ indeed, the little villages that sparkle like a grain of salt in the empty desert of the wanderings of Israel might be thought tempting to no man. But the line of the frontier had been drawn east of Tabah by the treaty which established Mehemet Ali in the Khedivate in 1840 [see in Volume I. of this work, Egypt: A. D. 1840-1869], and the claim to this limit had been prudently re-asserted by Lord Cromer in 1892, when the present Khedive ascended the throne. Any tampering with these written arrangements, even to the extent of a single village, would have been the end of our authority in Egypt. There was, therefore, no room for compromise. If Sir Edward Grey had hesitated to force a surrender from Turkey in May by the only possible method of moving the fleet to Phalerum [and demanding the immediate evacuation of Tabah], we might just as well have left the Nile.
{218}
"For the real significance of these events lay in what was going on in the mosques and newspapers of Egypt itself. As the crisis grew, these voices grew more and more daring. The preachers were as tempestuous as those who fulminated at St. Paul’s Cross in our own Reformation times. Every move of the Sultan in those tortuous negotiations was accompanied by an obligato of sympathy from the Pan-Islamic Press. The native journals in Egypt are small sheets, cheaply produced. During the last eighteen months they multiplied exceedingly, fed by mysterious channels. The new journals preached the new doctrine—the doctrine of Pan-Islamism. …
"A Turkish raid on the Suez Canal or Nekl might have caused an outburst of fanaticism in Egypt and seriously divided and embarrassed the Army of Occupation. It was impossible to be sure that the Egyptian army of 16,000 men, though officered by Englishmen, could be trusted to fight against the Turks. Hence the reinforcement of the British garrison, reduced to some 2000 men, by an addition of some 3000. These began to arrive in May, and the agitation calmed quickly after their arrival. They are now to stay on at the expense of Egypt. Thus the first effect of the Sultan’s interference has been a deplorable setback from Lord Cromer’s ideal of governing Egypt by means of British-officered native policemen."
_Harold Spender, England, Egypt and Turkey (Contemporary Review, October, 1906)._
EGYPT: A. D. 1907 (January). State of the country. General satisfaction of the people. The disaffected a minority. Transformation effected by English rule. Testimony of a French writer.
Those who know the real situation in Egypt can easily understand how almost the whole population, with the exception of an insignificant minority, are satisfied and desire no change. It is enough to compare the present state of the country—even rapidly and superficially—with that existing in 1882, to perceive the perfect satisfaction of all classes and the greatness of the work achieved by England; and the more profoundly this question is studied, the greater the admiration that must be accorded to Lord Cromer and to all those who during the past twenty-five years have worked under his orders at the regeneration of Egypt. The situation of that country in 1882 may be briefly summed up in the following manner:
"The Government was then in the hands of a band of rebels at the head of whom was the cowardly and worthless colonel, Arabi. The exchequer was empty; Egypt owed (almost entirely to Europe) nearly five millions sterling. The revenue was insufficient to pay the interest on her debts, or even to meet the expenses of government. The public works were all in such a state of neglect and disuse as to be no longer of any service. Commerce was paralysed and industry at the last gasp. The fellaheen, to whose labour Egypt owes her agricultural wealth, had stopped working, for, left at the mercy of the Pashas, who extorted from them everything possible down to the last farthing, they died of hunger, whether they worked or not. If we add that their leaders told the unfortunate people that their suffering all these privations was solely the fault of the Christian devils who were exacting mountains of gold from Egypt, it is easy to see that fanaticism and poverty combined were helping to make the situation a critical one for Europeans. It was into this fiery furnace that England entered and France refused to follow her. …
"This is now a tale of the past, and on the curtain being raised we behold a transformation so marvellous, so grand, that it is almost incredible. We find Egypt rich and prosperous; a great portion of her debt paid, an admirably adjusted budget; her revenues increasing enormously, regularly every year—and that in the face of large and important public works, works which daily augment the wealth of the country. Agriculture is advancing by leaps and bounds, while commerce and industry develop and increase with a rapidity unparalleled in the history of the world. A well-organised network of railroads, steam navigation, telegraphs, telephones, and excellently maintained canals, spreads over the country. Schools of every kind have been opened—primary, secondary, and higher schools, technical, commercial, and medical schools. The fellah works quietly and happily on his land, and the townsman is growing rich, while business prospers increasingly from one end of the country to the other. From the mouths of the Nile, from Alexandria to the great lakes of Central Africa, all across Egypt, Nubia, and the Soudan, peace and quiet reign everywhere. And—strange as it may seem—all these results have been obtained, not by increasing the taxes, but, on the contrary, by reducing and even in some cases abolishing them altogether.
"In less than twenty-five years England has accomplished all this and much more still. She has effected the marvellous achievement of remaining in Egypt with the unanimous consent of the Powers of Europe, to the great satisfaction of the Egyptians themselves and the foreigners dwelling in Egypt, and finally of living there as a friend, almost as an ally of France! …
"The honesty of the Government in all its branches, the impartiality with which all abuses have been punished, and finally the honourable example which during five-and-twenty years the English have set before the Egyptians, have certainly borne good fruit. To be ‘honest’ is no longer an empty expression on the banks of the Nile, and the entire population understands to-day what that word signifies. I think of how absolutely unknown it was in 1882! To sum up, Egypt and the Egyptians have now become _clean_, both physically and morally. We may say that England has cleansed and disinfected them, externally and internally."
_A. B. de Guerville, The Situation in Egypt (Fortnightly Review, February, 1907)._
In his work on "Modern Egypt," published since his retirement from the British administration in Egypt, Lord Cromer speaks as follows of the change which has come over Egypt since the British occupation took place. Though an interested witness, Lord Cromer is one well trusted by the general opinion of the world: "A new spirit," he wrote, "has been instilled into the population of Egypt. Even the peasant has learnt to scan his rights. Even the Pasha has learnt that others besides himself have rights which must be respected. The courbash may hang on the walls of the Moudirieh, but the Moudir no longer dares to employ it on the backs of the fellaheen. {219} For all practical purposes, it may be said that the hateful corvee system has disappeared. Slavery has virtually ceased to exist. The halcyon days of the adventurer and the usurer are past. Fiscal burthens have been greatly relieved. Everywhere law reigns supreme. Justice is no longer bought and sold. Nature, instead of being spurned and neglected, has been wooed to bestow her gifts on mankind. She has responded to the appeal. The waters of the Nile are now utilized in an intelligent manner. Means of locomotion have been improved and extended. The soldier has acquired some pride in the uniform which he wears. He has fought as he never fought before. The sick man can be nursed in a well-managed hospital. The lunatic is no longer treated like a wild beast. The punishment awarded to the worst criminal is no longer barbarous. Lastly, the schoolmaster is abroad, with results which are as yet uncertain, but which cannot fail to be important."
EGYPT: A. D. 1908. Gordon Memorial College at Khartoum.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: EGYPT.
EGYPT: A. D. 1909. Completion of the Esneh Barrage.
See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: EGYPT.
EGYPT: A. D. 1909 (May). The Nationalist agitation, excited by the Turkish Revolution.
A correspondent of the New York _Evening Post_, writing from London of the agitation for national independence in Egypt, under date of May 8, 1909, remarks that it has been affected in two ways by the recent revolutionary movements in the East. They have "weakened as well as strengthened the cause. For a number of half-educated native thinkers to see Turkey with a Parliament is to make them feel they should have one, too. The British agent points out that the youth of Egypt, upon whom must rest all hopes of eventual autonomy, are becoming demoralized by such propaganda. They have been clamoring on every occasion for a Constitution." They have been incited by a virulent press. "When, a few months ago, Mr. Haldane announced that the British army of occupation was to be increased to the same strength as the force in South Africa, disgusting diatribes were indulged in against the British army. Officers were described as monsters of low breeding, ill manners, cowardice, and multifarious vice. As a result of this kind of thing, and also through the pressure of the moderate native press, the old Press law of 1881 was revived—a law providing that after three warnings a paper may be suspended by the Council of Ministers by an administrative order, and not through the courts of law.
"Since then the Nationalists have arranged frequent demonstrations, some of them resulting in encounters with the police, which have been magnified by part of the English press into serious riots. Serious riots are not got up by schoolboys, who, according to the best information, seem to have been entirely responsible for the physical part of these demonstrations in Cairo and elsewhere. They have now been strictly forbidden to take part in any public political discussion."
EGYPT: A. D. 1909 (September). Young Egypt Congress.
The party of Young Egyptians, so called, held a Congress at Geneva in September—the second of such assemblies—which was attended by several sympathetic members of the British Parliament, Mr. Keir Hardie and others, representing the Labor and Irish parties. A telegram was sent from the Congress to the House of Commons in England, stating that the representatives of the intellectual elements of organized Egyptian political parties gathered in congress at Geneva on the occasion of the anniversary of the entry of the English troops into Cairo saluted very respectfully the representatives of Great Britain, recalled the reiterated promise of the British Government to evacuate Egyptian territory, and inasmuch as the reasons given by Mr. Gladstone for the occupation no longer existed, asked the House for the honour of the English nation to secure the withdrawal of the troops from Egyptian territory. A similar telegram was despatched to the Grand Vizier, Hilmi Pasha, asking him to use his influence with England to secure the withdrawal of the troops.
This was sent on the 14th of September, the 27th anniversary of the British occupation of Egypt, and on the same day the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Asquith, received the following telegram from Cairo:
"A meeting of 6,000 Egyptians assembled here to-day desires to convey to your high personage the unanimous and energetic protest of the Egyptian people against the occupation, and from to-day demands the evacuation, relying upon the engagements and solemn oaths of the Queen’s Governments. Moreover, to gain our friendship is more preferable for English honour than to lose our hearts and support."
The protest was also sent to the Grand Vizier in Constantinople and to the Young Egypt Congress in Geneva.
EHRLICH, Paul.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
EHR-LUNG-SHAN FORT, Capture of.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
EIGHT HOUR LABOR DAY.
See(in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.
ELECTIONS, Political: Contributions from Corporations prohibited.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907 (JANUARY).
----------ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Start--------
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1906. Universal Suffrage adopted in Austria.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1907.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Belgium: A. D. 1902. Opposition to the Plural Suffrage defeated.
See (in this Volume) BELGIUM: A. D. 1902, and 1904.
See in Volume I. of this work, CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM.
See in Volume VI. of this work, BELGIUM: A. D. 1894-1895.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: China: A. D. 1908. The Constitutional Promise.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1905-1908.
{220}
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: England: A. D. 1909. Second reading of the Representation of the People Bill, extending the Suffrage to Women and others.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Germany: A. D. 1906. Extensions of popular rights in some parts of the Empire. A comedy of election reform in Prussia.
"The agitation for the extension of popular rights is vigorous in many parts of the Empire. The Kingdom of Würtemberg has just reformed its antique constitution by eliminating from the Lower House the privileged members, ‘knights’ and clergymen, and substituting members elected by popular vote. Baden has introduced universal suffrage, and Bavaria has changed from indirect to direct voting. In the Kingdom of Saxony, which a decade ago remodeled its election law in a plutocratic direction, the government is now trying to retrace its steps. The Oldenburg government has committed itself to universal suffrage; and in Saxe-Weimar the Liberal parties and the Socialists have formed a compact to establish it. In the midst of this democratic movement Prussia has just carried through a slight revision of its election laws. …
"The government [Prussian] came forward last spring with a scheme of election reform which is nothing short of comical in its bureaucratic narrowness. Several huge city districts were divided, and ten new seats in the Chamber created,—not, however as a recognition of the rights of the urban population, but in order to facilitate the mere formalities of balloting. The number of electors in such districts had outgrown the capacity of any hall to hold them."
_W. C. Dreher, The Year in Germany (Atlantic Monthly, November, 1906)_.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: India: Slight exercise of local self-government.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: India: Introduction of popular representation in the Legislative Councils.
See INDIA: A. D. 1908-1909.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Persia: Under the recent Constitution.
See (in this Volume) CONSTITUTION OF PERSIA.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Philippine Islands. Provisions of election law.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Porto Rico: Change of qualifications for the suffrage.
See (in this Volume) PORTO RICO: A. D. 1901-1905.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Proportional Representation: England: The subject under discussion.
The practicability and desirability of proportional representation has been under investigation in the United Kingdom, during 1909, by a Royal Commission, which has had frequent sessions for hearings at Whitehall. At a hearing in October Lord Hugh Cecil, who represents Oxford in the House of Commons, argued with great force in favor of proportional representation, as a means of moderating the constraint exercised over independent opinion by party ties. He said that the present system was not satisfactory. It greatly hindered free discussion in the House of Commons, and tended to exaggerate there the intensity of feeling and the rigidity of the party system. Majorities were generally large, and often it was merely a trial of endurance. The empty condition of the House on many occasions proved that discussion never influenced divisions, and there was an elimination of independent opinion. Decisions were on party issues, except when new subjects such as the fiscal question, were brought forward. With smaller majorities independent opinion—specific rather than general—would have more opportunity, and that would be a gain. There was a growing tendency to lift foreign politics and, to a lesser degree, Colonial politics beyond party, and to a large extent the Government could count on the support of moderate opponents when foreign and Colonial matters were considered. He did not think the effect of proportional representation would be to form any more groups than they had at present, but his desire was that there should be members who were not absolute party men, and independent members would have more chance of getting returned. He considered that desirable, and did not apprehend the return of faddists. Even now faddists were easily elected to Parliament, where for the most part they were disregarded. He did not agree that practically all sections of the community were represented under the existing system. A very large and important section between the two parties was never represented, having always to choose between one or the other extreme.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: South Africa: The Principle in Practice.
The principle of proportional representation was brought into practice in the municipal elections of the Transvaal in October, 1909. The Constitution of the South Africa Union, which goes into effect in the spring of 1910, applies it, also, to the election of senators in the Union Parliament. "The proportional method chosen is, in each case, that of the single transferable vote, and the Johannesburg elections will furnish an example of the use of this system on a larger scale than any hitherto attempted, whilst the senatorial elections will furnish examples of its application to very small electorates. The duty of the voter, both in the senatorial and in the municipal elections, will be the same. He must place the figure 1 against the candidate for whom he desires to vote, and, in addition, he may and should place the figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and so on against the names of the other candidates in the order of his preference. The numbering of additional preferences, if not so vital as that of marking the first choice, is of extreme importance, and the elector should continue to indicate preferences until he has exhausted his powers of choice. The object, in marking preferences, is to prevent the waste of voting power. For, if the elector’s first choice has obtained more votes than are necessary to secure his election, or if his first choice has obtained so few votes as to be hopelessly out of the running, the returning officer will carry forward these votes in accordance with the wishes expressed by the electors, as indicated by the preferences marked. … The vote is always credited to the first choice and is not transferred save in the contingencies named. If, however, no effective use can be made of the vote in the return of the elector’s first choice the returning officer, in the absence of any instructions from the voter, will be unable to carry the vote forward, and the vote will therefore have no influence in determining the result of the election. Electors should therefore exercise to the full their privilege of marking preferences."
_The State (South African National Magazine), October, 1909._
{221}
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Prussia: A. D. 1909. Rejection of proposed Reforms.
The result of new proposals for reforming the intolerable class-system of voting in Prussia (see CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA in Volume VI. of this work), proposals of more sincerity than those of 1906, described above,—was thus reported in a Press despatch from Berlin, January 26, 1909:
"The debate upon the motions regarding reform of the Prussian franchise was concluded in the Lower House of the Diet to-day. After two more speeches had been delivered the Conservatives moved and carried the closure, and the various reform proposals were put to the vote. All the motions were rejected. Against most of the proposals so large a hostile majority was shown when the Deputies were invited to rise from their seats that no counting of votes was necessary. A motion in favour of the substitution of direct for indirect election was rejected, upon a division, by 168 votes against 165—a majority of three. Upon this question, and also upon the main question—the introduction of a universal and equal franchise with secrecy of the ballot—most of the Centre Party Deputies voted with the Left, and the majority consisted almost entirely of Conservatives and Free Conservatives, who under the existing system, possess an absolute majority in the Diet."
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Prussia: A. D. 1910.
A bill brought forward by the Government in February, 1910, professing to reform the elective franchise, gave less than no satisfaction to the mass of the people, who resented it as an insult to their rights. The measure was reported to make no change in the three-class system of voting, which ensures to wealth its political domination, and it refused the secret ballot. It conceded nothing of reform except a direct instead of an indirect election of representatives, and provoked formidable demonstrations of popular indignation in Berlin and other cities.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Russia: A. D. 1906. The Franchise as exercised in the election of the Dumas.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1906 and 1907.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Sweden: A. D. 1909. Franchise Reform Law.
See (in this Volume) SWEDEN: A. D. 1909.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Turkey: A. D. 1908. Under the Constitution regained by Revolution.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: United States: Direct primary nomination of candidates.
After a long and unsatisfactory experience in the United States of the nomination of candidates for public office by conventions of delegates, the people have been rapidly discarding that system within the last few years, replacing it by the institution of primary elections, at which candidates for the subsequent _election_ are _selected_ by direct vote. The old delegate system tended irresistibly to give the picking of candidates (between whom the people had finally a narrow choice) to little handfuls of men who make manipulative party management their main business in life, with objects of self profit, either in money or political power. Effective revolt against this evil-working system began in the Western States and is now strong in the East. The following summary statement of what it had accomplished, up to the spring of 1909, is from a pamphlet then published by the Citizens Union of New York City, in support of a "Direct Primary Bill" which was pending at the time in the Legislature of the State of New York:
"The direct primary is now the most usual system of making nominations in the United States, and in no case has a state, a county, or a town turned back from direct nominations to the convention system. It is no longer an experiment, having been tried out under varying conditions in so many states that it is possible to be guided by experience in avoiding the dangers of an imperfect direct primary law.
"Fourteen states [Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin], with a total population of 25,323,039, have _mandatory_ laws _requiring_ the use of this plan in selecting candidates of the principal parties for practically all offices. Three other states [Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania] have mandatory laws covering practically all except the state offices. Five other states [Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Tennessee] have _mandatory_ laws covering certain localities or offices. Five states [Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee], including two of the above, have optional laws covering practically all officers, the provisions of which laws have been largely taken advantage of. There are direct nominations laws of a weaker sort, some of them of little or no value, in many other states. Party rules have established direct nominations for at least the majority party in nearly all of the Southern states not mentioned above.
"About one-half of the states, including those in which the system has been established by party rules, use direct nominations for practically all elective offices. The states in which the system is established by mandatory law for practically all elective offices have about thirty per cent. of the population of the United States.
"Of the thirty-one United States senators elected last fall, seventeen were nominated by direct primaries. Fifteen out of thirty-two governors of states were so nominated. There is a strong movement for direct primaries in states which do not at present use this system to any considerable extent, namely: Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, California, Colorado, Idaho and Utah. In New Hampshire, both Republican and Democratic parties declared for it in their party platforms last fall, and the Republican Governor has recommended it to the Republican Legislature. In California, two direct nominations laws have been passed, but declared unconstitutional. Last fall, an amendment to the constitution of that state permitting the legislature to enact a direct nominations law was passed by a vote of the people.
"A brief outline of how direct nominations originated and how the system has been extended until it has been substituted for the convention system by a majority of the American people furnishes a strong argument in its favor. It is an American system, and a product of the struggle of the American people for the control of their government.
"Direct primaries originated in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, where the so-called Crawford County System was established by action of a Republican County Committee in 1860 and has been in force ever since. On two occasions, the question of whether it should be retained was put before the Republican voters and overwhelmingly decided in the affirmative, the last of these votes being taken after the system had been in force for nineteen years. Its popularity led to its adoption throughout the entire Congressional district for all nominations.
{222}
"The Minnesota direct primary law for the city of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, was enacted in 1899. After it had been tried in the city for two years, public sentiment, because of the excellent results achieved under the new law in Minneapolis, insisted upon its being extended, and other localities were brought within its provisions. Minnesota at present has a mandatory state-wide law applying to practically all except state offices. The newspapers of Minneapolis all declared for it, and no man of prominence in the state took a stand against it after it had been tried in the city.
"Michigan adopted direct primaries in 1903 for use in Grand Rapids, Kent County. The result was the defeat for re-nomination of the Mayor under whose administration the so-called water scandal had developed. Two years later, candidates in Kent County were requested to go on record as to whether they favored a general direct primary law for the state. All who recorded their positions declared for such a law, and it was commonly reported in the newspapers that opposition to direct primaries would mean defeat for any candidate who took so unpopular a stand.
"Thereafter direct nominations spread rapidly through the middle western states. Mandatory laws were substituted for optional laws, and state-wide laws for laws applying to certain localities or offices."
The movement for direct primary voting, to supersede delegated conventions in the nomination of candidates for office, was inspired and invigorated powerfully in New York by Governor Hughes (see, in this Volume, NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910), soon after his second term in the executive administration began. He saw that nothing else could emancipate the political parties of the State from their "boss"-ridden servitude, and make them real organs of expression for the mind and will of the people. The whole force of his great influence then went to the help of the advocates of this reform, and it produced a public wakening on the subject which years of ordinary agitation might have failed to bring about. He brought, moreover, to the movement an inborn statesmanship of judgment and an intellectual training which gave it the wisest direction it had yet received. The Bill which he assisted to frame, embodying his official recommendations, was designed more carefully than the legislation in other States had been, not only to avoid any weakening of the organization of political parties, but to give them the strength of a leadership conferred truly and freely by its followers. The measure was opposed desperately by the existing "organization" of the party in power, and that combination was represented in the Legislature so much more effectively than the people were that it compassed the defeat of the Bill, in the session of 1909.
Four times the people of Illinois have extorted acts from their Legislature providing for direct nominations, and thrice the enactments, badly framed, have been pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the State. The fourth of these pieces of legislation, produced in February, 1910, is not yet tested.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Disfranchising Amendment to the Maryland Constitution defeated.
A disfranchising amendment to the Constitution of Maryland, designed not only to exclude many colored people from the suffrage, but to give the now dominant political party a complete mastery of the ballot box, was rejected by the people when submitted to them at the election of November, 1909.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Short Ballot Reform.
A movement that will gain force if the grave reasons for it can be duly impressed on the popular mind has been assuming organized form of late. The prime mover in it is Mr. Richard S. Childs, of New York, who began missionary work for it in a convincing magazine article on "The Doctrine of the Short Ballot," published in 1908. Printed afterwards in a small pamphlet, this impressive argument has had wide circulation and has drawn many men of influence into league with the author for urging the subject on public attention. The aim is to reduce elective offices in State, county and town to such a limited number that the average voter can acquaint himself with the comparative merits of candidates and make a fairly intelligent choice, which he cannot do when the number is large. "We must shorten the ballot," wrote Mr. Childs, "to a point where the average man will vote intelligently without giving to politics more attention than he does at present." "Voting a straight ticket is not a matter of party loyalty so much as of not knowing what else to do, and split tickets will become common as soon as the list is reduced to a point where each candidate becomes in the mind of the voter a definite personality instead of a mere name on a long list. To make public office conspicuous can only be accomplished by making it stand out in solitude before the gaze of the voter. Let all the encumbrances in the shape of minor offices disappear from the ballot and be made appointive. Or at the very least prevent the few offices from overshadowing the many. Make all the candidates conspicuous by letting no one be more conspicuous than another."
A digest of the "short ballot" doctrine is offered in the following propositions:
"To the average American voter most of the long ballot is a mere list of names. He registers a genuine personal opinion only on certain conspicuous offices—the rest he necessarily delegates by default to organizations of ‘political specialists.’
"These political organizations, if victorious, sink into the control of their worst members, since these members having most to gain and being least scrupulous can generally win within the organization. Then these men run public administrations as badly as they dare.
"But we get good men for any conspicuous office where there is adequate public scrutiny of the candidate, and even Tammany offers us satisfactory public servants in such places.
"_Therefore_, if we make most offices appointive so as to _shorten the ballot_, till the voter can master his whole task, and every elected officer becomes conspicuous before his constituents, political machines will become impotent and merit will become the most important asset for a candidate.
"The result will be uniform clean government as in England, Canada, etc., where they have 'The Short Ballot’ already."
{223}
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Suffrage Amendment to the Georgia Constitution adopted by popular vote.
A suffrage amendment to the Constitution of the State of Georgia, adopted by an overwhelming popular vote in October, 1908, provides that, in order to register and vote according to the provisions of this amendment, a man must, besides meeting certain requirements as to residence and the payment of his taxes, have one of the following qualifications: Either
(1) he must have served in the land or naval forces of the United States or the Confederate States or the State of Georgia in time of war, or be lawfully descended from one who has done so; _or_
(2) he must be a person of good character, satisfying the registrars of election that he understands the duties and obligations of citizenship; _or_
(3) he must correctly read in the English language any paragraph of the United States Constitution or the State Constitution, and, unless physically incapacitated from doing so, correctly write the same when read to him; _or_
(4) he must be the owner of at least forty acres of land in the State in which he resides, or the owner of five hundred dollars’ worth of property in the State assessed for taxation.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Woman Suffrage: At Large: Present extent of the movement.
"We rejoice in the immense progress made by women in the last 60 years. In 1848 women had votes nowhere in the world except the school vote in Kentucky by widows with children of school age, and a very limited franchise in some parts of Europe. Today women vote for all elected officers in Finland, Norway, Federated Australia, New Zealand, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Idaho: they have municipal suffrage in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, in Canada, Kansas, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland; tax suffrage in Louisiana, Montana, Iowa and New York, and school suffrage in one-half the States of the Union. When that first convention met, only one College in the United States admitted women; now hundreds of colleges do so. Then there was not a single woman physician, or ordained minister, or lawyer; now there are 7000 women physicians and surgeons, 3000 ordained ministers, and one thousand lawyers. Then only a few poorly paid employments were open to women; now women are in more than 300 occupations, and comprise 80 per cent. of our teachers. Then there were scarcely any organizations of women; now such organizations are numbered by thousands. Then the few women who dared to speak in public, even on philanthropic questions, were overwhelmingly condemned by public opinion; now the women most opposed to equal suffrage travel about the country making public speeches to prove that a woman’s only place is at home. Then a married woman in most of our States could not control her own person, property or earnings; now in most of the States these laws have been largely amended, and it is only in regard to the ballot that the fiction of women’s perpetual minority is still kept up. Most of the demands made by the convention of 1848, which then seemed so revolutionary, have been already granted, and are now looked upon as matters of course. … We rejoice in the increasingly rapid progress of the woman suffrage cause. Every year shows some gain. Since our last annual meeting Parliamentary suffrage has been extended to the women of Norway; municipal suffrage to the women of Denmark; Sweden has made women eligible to municipal office; Russia has given women of property a proxy vote for members of the Douma; and Great Britain, with only 15 dissenting votes, has made women eligible as Mayors, Aldermen and County and Town Councillors. We congratulate the women of Great Britain upon their gallant fight for the franchise."
_Resolutions of the 40th Annual Convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, at Buffalo, New York, October, 1908._
In Europe "there is the curious anomaly that in its two so-called republics the cause of woman suffrage is more backward than in almost any of the other countries. In Switzerland every man over twenty may vote. A National Woman Suffrage Association has lately been organized which is supported by many public men. …
"In France, all men twenty-one years old have the franchise. The National Council of Women, composed of 55 associations with about 70,000 members, has recently joined forces with the National Suffrage Union, thus assuring strong and systematic effort for the enfranchisement of women. In 1906, a Committee for the Defence of the Rights of Women was formed in the Chamber of Deputies, to secure the social, civil and political rights of women."
_Ida H. Harper North American Review, September. 1907._
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Australia.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, in its 41st clause provides as follows:
See (in Volume VI. of this work) CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.
"No adult person who has or acquires the right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State, shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Commonwealth."
Inasmuch as two of the Australian States, South Australia and Western Australia, had already extended the suffrage to women when this federal constitution was adopted, they gained at once, by its terms, the right of voting at federal elections in those States. An account of their first appearance in Australian Federal politics was given subsequently by one of the women who participated,—in part as follows:
"The political incentive is now the possession of the women of Australia, and its influence was a potent factor in the recent Federal elections. The women of South Australia and West Australia have had the suffrage for some years, so that they are accustomed to voting, but to the women of the other States the whole business was new; nevertheless, they voted in as large numbers proportionally as the men in a majority of the constituencies, while in some they cast a heavier vote than the men. The total vote was only 52 per cent. of the voting strength, the low percentage being due to the fact that the people as a body have not yet grasped the Federal idea. Federation has not completely scotched provincialism in politics, though it is fast doing so, if for no other reason than the enormous cost of government in this country. The people are beginning to realize that we are paying the political piper heavily—fourteen Houses of Parliament and seven viceroyalties for four millions of people! It is too big an order, and common sense, as well as the state of our finances, demands that we should simplify our legislative machinery. It is right here, as the Americans say, that the women’s influence will tell. {224} During the election campaign, it was most evident that a very large section of the women favoured those candidates who urged economy in public expenditure. Individual women, with no idea of the value of money, may be extravagant, but most women are compelled by circumstances to be economical, and have a horror of wasteful expenditure. Therefore the growing demand for less expensive legislative machinery will find devoted adherents amongst the women voters. …
"The elections had an added interest in the appearance of four women candidates in the field—Mrs. Martell, Mrs. Moore (New South Wales), myself (Victoria), standing for the Senate; and Miss Selina Anderson (New South Wales) for the House of Representatives. All were defeated, but the defeat was not unexpected, as we were well aware that it would be altogether phenomenal if women were to succeed in their first attempt to enter a National Parliament. …
"There were eighteen candidates in the field, and, while unsuccessful, my record of 51,497 votes, when 85,387 were sufficient to secure election, is most gratifying. I polled more heavily than one candidate who has been Premier of Victoria, and than another who had been for twenty-six years a member of the State legislature, defeating the one by 24,327, the other by 32,436 votes—51,000 odd votes, in spite of the opposition of the powerful daily papers, and the prejudice that a pioneer always has to encounter, is nothing less than a triumph for the cause that I represent, the cause of women and children."
_Vida Goldstein, The Political Woman in Australia (Nineteenth Century, July, 1904)._
"The argument that women will not vote is completely disproved by Australian experience. They not only vote, but they vote in continually increasing numbers as time goes on, and they become educated up to a sense of their political responsibilities and all that these imply. Not all the states discriminate in their returns between men and women voters, but those that do show something like the following: In South Australia, at the last general election, 59 per cent. of the men on the rolls voted, and 42 per cent. of the women; in Western Australia, 49 per cent. of the men and 47 per cent. of the women voted; at the last Federal election, 56 per cent. of the men voted, and 40 per cent. of the women. None of the Australian states has yet reached the extraordinary record of New Zealand, where, in 1902, nearly 75 per cent. of the women electors recorded their votes, as against 76 per cent. of their brothers.
"It is unnecessary to add that the conservative woman votes. Her husband or father and their newspaper take good care that the duty of doing so is well impressed upon her, even though abstractly they may all three disapprove of woman in politics, and have striven to avert her appearing in that arena as long as they possibly could. …
"Among the measures that can be traced to woman suffrage within the last ten years are prematernity acts, acts raising the age of consent, family maintenance acts, and many acts improving children’s conditions by extending juvenile courts, limiting hours of work, providing better inspection, forbidding sale to children of drink, drugs and doubtful literature."
_Alice Henry, The Australian Woman and the Ballot (North American Review, December 21, 1906)._
Writing in the New York _Evening Post_ of February 10, 1909, Mrs. Ida Husted Harper makes the following statements: "The recent announcement that the upper house of Parliament in Victoria, Australia, had passed a woman suffrage bill by a vote of 23 to 5, marked the gaining of complete suffrage for women in all of Australasia. Since 1902 women have had a vote in Australia for members of the national Parliament, and for a number of years the vote for State officials in all the States except Victoria. There the lower house, or Assembly, has fifteen times passed a bill giving this vote to women only to have it rejected by the upper house, or Council. The Assembly is elected by popular vote; the Council is not. … With their municipal and national franchise the women were able to make things decidedly uncomfortable for the opponents, in which they were encouraged and aided by the labor unions. At last the council surrendered unconditionally, and the vote of twenty-three to five showed that most of them tried to get into the band wagon. The five who voted ‘no’ were probably ‘in for life,’ and not afraid of the consequences. … Australia has thoroughly tested woman suffrage, first in municipal affairs, and then in those of State and nation. There is not one objection made against it which is not refuted by the actual experience of that country. All the talk about who will take care of the baby and what will become of the home, its men would brush aside as so much chaff."
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Denmark: Its first exercise in Municipal Elections.
Danish municipal elections in March, 1909, were conducted under a new law which gives every woman who either pays direct taxes or whose husband does so the right to vote. The law also provides for a system of proportional representation. "There was naturally much discussion beforehand," wrote a newspaper correspondent from Copenhagen, "as to what would be the result of this first experiment in woman suffrage in Denmark. The Conservatives, indeed, protested for a long time before they yielded to its claims. As far as can now be ascertained the relative strength of the parties in the councils will be practically unchanged, that is to say, the Conservatives will still have a slight majority. This is at all events the case in and around Copenhagen, where the women took a very active part in the voting, nearly 75 per cent. of those who were entitled to vote having done so."
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: England: Qualification for County and Borough Councils.
The following are the provisions of an Act of Parliament approved in August, 1907:
"A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected or being a councillor or alderman of the council of any county or borough (including a metropolitan borough): Provided that a woman if elected as chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough shall not by virtue of holding or having held that office be a justice of the peace."
{225}
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: The Campaign of the Militant Suffragists or "Suffragettes."
The cause of the women who desire and demand equal political rights with men seemed to be advancing fast toward complete victory in Great Britain, in 1906-1907, when the impatient among them began resorting to militant methods of agitation. It is probably safe to say that no other movement by any part of any people in any country, for obtaining an extension of political rights, had ever been carried by rational discussion and appeal to a point of more encouragement than the woman suffrage movement in the United Kingdom had then attained. For everything elective in local government the vote had been won for women, and the opening of county and borough offices to them was on the eve of being written into law. Representation in Parliament, only, had not been secured, but the disposition to concede it was growing from day to day. It was at this stage of promising progress in the movement that an impatient section of its promoters became persuaded that some disturbance of the public peace and some troubling of the Government would hasten the final triumph of their cause. Why they were led to that conclusion was explained to an American audience in New York by their leader, Mrs. Pankhurst, in October, 1909, as follows:
"The Liberals failed to put woman suffrage in their Newcastle programme. We waited on Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, leader of that party, and who would be prime minister, but he said he was too busy seeing voters to attend to women. The other parties acted in the same way, so we were forced to other action. A. J. Balfour, the Tory leader, upon whom we called, declared that he was in favor of equal suffrage, but was honest enough to add that no statesman would propose a bill to give it unless it were made a practical question of politics.
"You have heard much of our methods. You have condemned them, but whether they were right or wrong, objectionable or not, they have certainly accomplished our object of bringing the question before the British public as a practical political question. … My grandmother was a Chartist, and so I determined to follow in her footsteps.
"It was at Manchester, almost on the site of the Peterloo franchise riots, when the yeomen, with their bayonets, cut down the men seeking votes, that our agitation began. Sir Edward Grey was closing the great Liberal revival in Lancashire by a great meeting. Women were admitted to meetings in England in those days; it is not so now. We decided to be there with a banner on which we would inscribe the motto ‘Will the Liberal government give working women the vote?’ Annie Kenny, an officer of the Cotton Workers’ Trade Union, was chosen to put the question to Sir Edward Grey. She accepted on condition that my daughter, Christobel Pankhurst, would accompany her and hold her hand. We tried to get them seats in the front of the balcony, where they could unfurl the banner. We failed in this, so we got seats in the area, and had to change the banner. The new one was made on my dining-room table with a piece of calico and some black paint and contained the now world-wide motto: ‘Votes for Women.’
"Sir Edward Grey delivered a great speech, but there was nothing in it about giving women votes. Several questions were put to him, and he answered as all public speakers should, and as they always do in England. When he was done, more questions were in order. Annie Kenny rose and unfurled her banner, holding it up in a hand from which she had lost a finger while at work in the mills at an age when girls should not be allowed to work—especially when they are intended for motherhood. Holding her companion’s hand, she put her question: ‘Will the Liberal government give working women votes?’ Instantly the stewards pounced upon her; hands were pressed over her mouth, and she was forced to sit down. She was told to write her question, and it would be answered. A vote of thanks was proposed, and Sir Edward Grey answered.
"When he failed to answer her question, Annie Kenny rose and insisted on an answer. She was pounced upon; six men dragged her hat off and pulled her to the door, but her last words as she was thrown out were: ‘Sir Edward Grey, answer my question.’ My daughter took up the task, and repeated the question. She, too, was set upon and dragged past the stage, upon which sat men who had known her from childhood, who had voted for her father; but so strong is party spirit that they allowed her to be thrown out without protest.
"They held a meeting outside and were arrested for obstructing the police. They were fined, and went to jail. But we had gained what we wanted. The press, which had ignored us, heralded our cause. We were giving them good copy."
In the early period of the campaign of public disturbance which the militant suffragists had thus planned, their operations were directed mainly to the interruption of speakers at political meetings, not only by questions, but by bell-ringing and the like, provoking forcible ejection, arrest and fine, or commitment to jail. Presently some resorted to the device of chaining themselves to seats, prolonging the disturbance and heightening its sensational character. The crowning sensation of this description was achieved on the 8th of November, 1908, when two daring suffragettes who had gained admission to the women’s gallery in the House of Commons chained themselves to the metal lattice work in front of it and opened a fire of questions and demands on the dismayed law makers below. In the previous month the House had been besieged by a great mob of women who attempted to force their way into its well-guarded chambers, under Mrs. Pankhurst’s lead. She and others of the leaders, arrested on this occasion, refused to give bonds to keep the peace, and were sentenced to imprisonment for three months.
From this time on, the devices of public disturbance and of annoyance to Parliament and Ministers became more and more ingeniously sensational. One performance, on the 27th of April, 1909, was thus described by a London newspaper of the morning after:
"St. Stephen’s Hall is built upon the site of the old Parliament, its dimensions in length and width are the same, its memories embalm the great Parliamentary tradition, it is the place where the liberties of the people have been won. This is the place which was chosen yesterday by woman suffragists for a degrading exhibition of disorder. On either side of the hall are two rows of wonderful statues, like white ghosts of the old Parliament. To the legs of four of these statues as many women yesterday afternoon fastened themselves, after their practice, with chains, and remained there, a centre of disturbance, until an end was put to their mimic slavery by the police. The statues were those of Selden, Walpole, Somers, and Falkland; and it is matter for great regret that Falkland’s statue, in its pathetic grace the most charming of them all, has been wantonly injured by this rough usage."
{226}
On the 24th of June the lobby of the House of Commons became the scene of another performance in the same spirit by a single dauntless actor,—thus related: "Miss Wallace Dunlop, who was intercepted the other day in an attempt to deface with indelible ink the walls of the lobby of the House of Commons with an appeal on behalf of ‘Votes for Women,’ succeeded yesterday in accomplishing her object. Disguised as an elderly lady and carrying a brown handbag, she eluded the vigilance of the police till well within the lobby of the House. Drawing from her handbag a small wooden stencil, or board, with felt attached and saturated with indelible purple ink, she succeeded in placing it against the wall of the lobby at a conspicuous spot. The ink was at once absorbed into the surface of the wall. The words written were:--‘Women’s Deputation, June 29th. Bill of Rights. It is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.’ Miss Wallace Dunlop was taken to Cannon-row Police-station, and after being detained two hours was charged with doing wilful damage. She will be brought before the magistrates at Bow Street this morning."
Miss Dunlop received a sentence of imprisonment, and inaugurated in prison a more heroic protest against and defiance of the tyranny of which she believed herself to be a victim. It is described in the following manifesto, published by the National Women’s Social and Political Union (the principal organization of the militant suffragists) on the 14th of July:
"The women who have been sent to prison in connexion with woman suffrage disturbances have, from the beginning, demanded treatment as political prisoners, and have appealed to the Home Secretary to accord them the rights and privileges to which political prisoners are entitled in every part of the world. As this appeal has been disregarded, women have now decided to take the law into their own hands, and, by carrying on a revolt in prison, to force the hands of the authorities to concede them what they have refused to give as a matter of justice.
"The first action taken in the matter was that of Miss Wallace Dunlop, sent to prison on Friday, July 2, for imprinting an extract from the Bill of Rights upon one of the walls in the House of Commons. Political treatment being refused to her, and being ordered to wear prison clothes and eat prison food, Miss Wallace Dunlop determined to strike a blow for her rights by refusing absolutely to eat the food offered to her. After 91 hours of starvation—during which time communications were constantly passing between the Governor of the prison and the Home Office—the authorities decided to give in, and Miss Wallace Dunlop was released.
"The 14 members of the Women’s Social and Political Union who were sent to prison on Monday, July 12, in connexion with the stone throwing at the Government buildings on June 29, have determined to carry out a further revolt. Before leaving for prison they informed the officers of the union that it was their intention, if denied the rights of political prisoners, to carry out an effective protest in prison. When ordered to take off their own clothes and to put on prison clothes they intended to refuse to do so, and standing all together they would refuse to be put into cells of the second division. If put into their cells by force and undressed, they would refuse in the morning to get up and dress excepting into their own clothes. They also informed members of the union that they would refuse to obey the rule of silence, but would talk to one another whenever they liked and would sing aloud during retention.
"In making this protest the women claim that they are fighting for the preservation of the rights of political prisoners, which were not denied even in the Bastille."
Miss Dunlop’s heroic protest, by refusing prison food, was taken up at once and repeated by numbers of her imprisoned sisters; until the prison authorities met it by forcibly administering food, in the manner of treatment applied sometimes to desperate convicts or to the insane; and this, of course, is more than repugnant and distressing to the feeling of everybody. The whole unexampled situation is repugnant and distressing, however it may be viewed. The cause involved is so pitifully stripped of its dignity, simply for the reason that the sex whose cause it is has nothing in body or mind to qualify it for effectual rioting. A mob of men can invest its mischievous doings with the impressiveness of terror, which crushes laughter and contempt. A mob of such women as the champion suffragists are cannot do so, and the riot they attempt is but a travesty, which challenges jeers, and sadly smirches the after heroism of the self-starved rioters in their prison cells. The difference between a political insurrection of men and the insurgency of Mrs. Pankhurst and her followers is the difference between a menace that alarms and a nuisance that annoys and provokes. With what effect the cause of woman suffrage has been made a public nuisance in England remains to be seen. The advantage to it is dubious, to say the least. On this point Mr. Winston Churchill, President of the Board of Trade, spoke his mind plainly to a deputation of suffragettes who called on him at Dundee on the 18th of last October. He said:
"I saw the beginning of what you call the militant tactics. They broke out in my late constituency, North-West Manchester, and during the four years that have passed I have fought three by-elections, and have made a great many speeches about the country. So, I suppose, I have come very nearly as much in contact with them as any other Cabinet Minister. … You have come to me in a deputation, and I am bound to give you my candid and truthful opinion that your cause is in a worse position now than it was four years ago. I do not mean by that that anything has been done which will prevent the ultimate success of the movement. I do not think that is so, but I am quite sure that, while these tactics of silly disorder and petty violence continue, there is not the slightest chance of any Government that will be called into power, or of any House of Commons which is likely to be elected, giving you the reform which you seek. That is my honest, unprejudiced view."
{227}
The National Union of Women Suffrage Societies, of which Mrs. Henry Fawcett is President, represents a large body of women claimants of the suffrage who distinctly disapprove of and disclaim responsibility for the proceedings of their militant allies. In a statement which this National Union communicated to the Prime Minister on the 2d of October, 1909, they set forth the following facts in evidence of the strength of the popular support given to their claims: Since the beginning of 1908 the National Union had taken part in 31 by-elections in Great Britain. "These have been contested by 69 candidates, of whom 26 were Liberals, 32 Unionists, and 11 Labour, Socialist, or Independent. Of these 69 candidates, only nine declared themselves opponents of woman suffrage. The rest in varying degrees accepted the principle of the enfranchisement of women. A few merely stated that they were not hostile, but the overwhelming majority frankly accepted it, some even pledging themselves to oppose any further extension of the franchise to men so long as it was withheld from women."
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: Finland: The great victory of 1906.
"The great victory for woman suffrage in 1906 was won in Finland, where women were enfranchised on exactly the same terms as men, and made eligible to all offices, including seats in Parliament. This gives the vote at once to about 300,000 women. Preceding and during the revolution, in the attempt to throw off the Russian yoke, the women shared with the men the work, the hardships and the dangers; and, when the triumph came, there was not a thought on the part of men of excluding women from any portion of the rewards, the most important of which was the suffrage. But they themselves had long been preparing the ground. The Finnish Women’s Association to work for equal rights was founded in 1884 by Baroness Alexandra Gripenberg and never ceased its efforts. In 1892 the Woman’s Alliance Union was organized, more democratic and aggressive in its character. … After the vast national strike in the autumn of 1905, while a body of leading men were drawing up a Declaration of Rights to be presented to the Tsar, Dr. (Miss) Tekla Hulsin, a member of the National Bureau of Statistics, made an eloquent plea in behalf of the women, and they were included in its demand for universal suffrage. … The Tsar signed it in November, giving his consent to the proposed reforms. Immediately the women set to work, lecturing, organizing, getting up petitions, and finally held another huge mass-meeting in Helsingfors, demanding that the Diet carry out this measure. All of the political parties put it in their platforms. On May 28th, 1906, the Diet with only one dissenting vote passed the bill giving the suffrage to all men and women twenty-four years old. This was signed by the Tsar on July 20th."
_Ida H. Harper, Woman Suffrage Throughout The World (North American Review, September, 1907)._
Dr. Tekla Hulsin, referred to above, now a woman member of the Finnish Diet, speaking at a suffragist meeting in London, in September, 1909, gave the following account of the action of the women members of that body:
"The granting of woman suffrage had caused no change in the strength of the respective political parties. Every citizen in Finland who was entitled to vote was also eligible for membership of the Diet. There had been no rivalry between the men and women candidates; they recognized that they were there for common ends. The women members of the Diet had followed their parties on party questions, but had joined on women’s questions for humanitarian ends. They had presented petitions for the raising of the marriageable age from 15 to 17, the exemption of women from their husband’s guardianship, the reception of Government employment on the same grounds as men, and on the subject of the prevention of cruelty to children and animals. These had all been accepted by the Diet."
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: International Council of Women.
See (in this Volume) WOMEN, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: International Woman Suffrage Alliance.
"Since the Conference held at Copenhagen in August of 1906, which closed with thirteen countries in membership, the Alliance has been growing till its influence is felt as far as South Africa. On the first day of the Conference, held in Amsterdam June 15, 1907, there was presented an application from the Woman Suffrage Associations of Natal and Cape Colony for auxiliaryship in the Alliance. … The second request for auxiliaryship was presented by Switzerland, which had formed a National committee of seven Cantonal Associations. … The third new member, and the last one to enter the Alliance, was the National Bulgarian Alliance for Women’s Rights. This body is composed of thirty local societies working in different lines, and is somewhat like our Federation of Women’s Clubs here, or a National Council of Women. … The full membership roll of the Alliance now includes Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, United States, South Africa and Switzerland. Perhaps the most important new departure at Amsterdam was the fact that official representatives were sent to that meeting by the Australian Federation, Norway and the State of Utah. Those coming from Australia and Norway were not only delegated by the Government but their expenses were borne by the National Treasury, and they were sent as students of the whole question as represented internationally by the Alliance, and expected to report upon it to their respective governments. … Fraternal delegates came to the Alliance from the International Council of Women, and from the National Councils of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden; and in addition to these fraternal delegates were sent by seventeen associations from the countries already mentioned and Scotland in addition; making in all twenty-one countries represented either by regular delegates or by fraternal delegates at the Amsterdam conference."
_Proceedings of the 40th Annual Convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, at Buffalo, New York, October, 1908._
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: New Zealand: Its working in that country.
Sir Joseph George Ward, Prime Minister of New Zealand, returning home from England in August, 1908, passed through the United States, and was questioned in New York about the working of woman suffrage in his country, where women have been voters for the last sixteen years. He declared his conviction that New Zealand had found it to be one of the most far-sighted policies ever put into effect, for the ballot in the hands of women had exercised a great influence for the general good. "A stranger coming to New Zealand," he said, "would not recognize any difference between our institutions and those here, so far as the right of women to vote is concerned. He would see no women politicians, no campaign orators of the other sex, no disturbances such as are so often pictured as one of the attendant ills of woman’s suffrage.
{228}
"Under our laws women cannot stand for Parliament, nor hold any other office. They do not mix it up in a campaign. You never hear of them in this way during an election. They attend public meetings, they are present at all of the public ceremonies, and are unusually well-informed upon all public questions. When they vote they vote intelligently, and any woman over twenty-one years of age and a citizen of the country can vote. Her right to vote does not, as many imagine, cause family dissensions, nor family wrangles such as cartoonists picture. There are no more differences over politics in New Zealand families than there are over domestic problems in the United States. The ballot in the hands of the women, so far as I have observed, means only the healthy influence of the home injected into politics. Our law prohibits the solicitation of votes on election day; the placarding of streets and houses, the use of vehicles to carry voters, the exerting of any influence to obtain a vote. A wife may accompany her husband to the polls, to the door of the booth, but no further. The laws absolutely protect the privacy of the ballot.
"In New Zealand the granting of the privilege of voting to women did not result in the levelling of the wage scale, or the competition between men and women in labor. In comparison with other countries the proportion of wage-earning women in New Zealand is small. She has her place to fill in the home, and there are no truer and more devoted mothers of families in the world. I believe that her influence upon man is all the greater and better by reason of her suffrage. She recognizes the position of man as the head of the household, and he is, generally speaking, always the wage-earner, and I firmly believe that if women could under our laws be elected to office and have a part in the making of laws, they would not seek legislation that would tend to further advance themselves and limit the activity of the men.
"Women’s suffrage has surely resulted in the raising of the standard of education in our country. The class of ignorant people is very small, and growing smaller and smaller with each succeeding generation. … The country has not been without its political and labor demagogues, but the conservative judgment of the voters has always prevailed in the end. Graft is something unknown in New Zealand."
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: The Increasing Vote of Women at local option polls and in general elections.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: NEW ZEALAND.
----------ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: End--------
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
See, (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
ELECTRICITY.
See (in this Volume and in Volume VI.) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT.
ELECTRO-CHEMISTRY.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRO-CHEMISTRY.
ELECTRONS.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: PHYSICAL.
ELEVATOR COMBINATION, Dissolution of the.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.
ELGIN, The Earl of: Secretary of State for the Colonies (British).
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
ELGIN, The Earl of: Presiding at Imperial Conference.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
ELIOT, Charles W.: Retirement from Presidency of Harvard University.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
ELKINS, Anti-Rebate Law.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903 (February).
ELKINS CLAUSE, The.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1906-1909.
EMERGENCY CURRENCY ACT.
See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908.
EMERY CLAIM, The.
See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1909: NICARAGUA.
EMIGRATION.
See (in this Volume) IMMIGRATION; also RACE PROBLEMS.
EMPIRE DAY.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (MAY).
EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY.
See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION.
ENCYCLICALS.
See Papacy.
ENDJUMEN FUTUVAT, The: An anti-parliamentary party.
See (in this Volume) PERSIA: A. D. 1906-1907.
----------ENGLAND: Start--------
[Footnote: For convenience of use in the many references to this heading throughout the Volume, the name of England is made to stand for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,—a stretch of meaning which seems often permissible.]
ENGLAND: A. D. 1870-1905. Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1900. Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901. Census of the British Empire compiled.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE.
{229}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901. Census of England and Wales, and of the United Kingdom. Population. Relative numbers of males and females. Agricultural industry. Extent of various uses of the soil. The different kinds of areas.
The eleventh Census of the population of England and Wales was taken April 1st, 1901, "ascertaining the required information relating to the persons returned as living at midnight on Sunday, March 31st." The number enumerated in England and Wales, as finally revised at the Census Office, was 35,527,843; showing an increase of 3,525,318, or a decennial rate of increase of 12.17 percent, upon the number returned at the preceding enumeration in April, 1891. Of the persons enumerated in England and Wales in 1901, 15,728,613 were males and 16,799,230 were females, the latter exceeding the former by 1,070,617. This, however, does not represent the relative numbers of the two sexes that _belong_ to the population of the country; "for there are always men temporarily absent abroad as soldiers or seamen or for business purposes"; while, on the other hand, "the enumerated population temporarily includes some soldiers and sailors who were born in Scotland and Ireland, as well as foreign sailors and business representatives." Making reckonings for these, "the population _belonging_ to England and Wales at the date of the Census may be estimated at 32,805,040 persons, of whom 16,005,810 were males, and 16,799,230 were females." During the ten years prior to 1901 the recorded male births in England exceeded the female births by 160,987, while the recorded deaths of males exceeded the deaths of females by 155,363. This would have about evened their numbers in the population of 1901; hence the existing excess of females is due, in the main, to the more extensive emigration or temporary absence of males.
Of the population of England and Wales less than 4 per cent. was born outside of those two divisions of the United Kingdom; not quite 1 per cent. was born in Scotland; a little more than 1.3 per cent. was born in Ireland; a trifle more than 1 per cent. in foreign countries, and an insignificant fraction in British colonies and dependencies. England, it will be seen, is troubled very slightly with problems arising from a mixed population.
The Census of Scotland and Ireland, taken simultaneously with that of England and Wales, gave the former a population of 4,472,103, and the latter 4,458,775. Scotland had gained 46,456 since 1891; Ireland had lost in the same period 245,975. In the sixty years since 1841 Ireland had lost more than 3,700,000. The total of population in the United Kingdom, at midnight, March 31, 1901, was found to be 41,458,721; and the females exceeded the males in number by 1,253,905. The excess was least in Ireland.
Judged by the numbers engaged therein, the Agricultural Industry is still the most important in the United Kingdom; but, since 1881, it had been reduced from 2,362,331 males to 2,109,812 in 1901. The decline was far less in Ireland than in England, Scotland, or Wales. In England and Wales, the whole area of land, amounting to 37,129,162 acres, or 58,014 square miles, is divided by the census report into areas as follows:
Acres. Corn Crops 5,886,052
Green Crops 2,511,744
Clover and grasses under rotation 3,262,926
Flax, Hops, Small Fruit 120,683
Bare Fallow 336,884
Permanent Pasture or Grass 15,399,025
Mountain and Heath Land used for Grazing 3,556,636
Woods, Plantations, Nursery Grounds, Houses, Streets, Roads, Railways, Waste Grounds, &c. 6,055,212
Total Land Area of England and Wales. 37,129,162
The enumeration of "different kinds of areas," in England and Wales, as set forth in the Census report, is interesting in some particulars—such as these: 54 Ancient Counties; 62 Administrative Counties; 468 Parliamentary Areas; 2 Ecclesiastical Provinces; 35 Ecclesiastical Dioceses; 14,080 Ecclesiastical Parishes; 14,900 Civil Parishes; 67 County Boroughs; 28 Metropolitan Boroughs with their Wards; 54 County Court Circuits; 500 County Court Districts; 1122 Urban Districts (including 316 County or Municipal Boroughs) with the Wards of those which are so subdivided; 664 Rural Districts.
_Census of England and Wales, 1901. General Report. (Parliamentary Papers, 1904, Cd. 2174.)_
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (NOVEMBER). An addition to the Titles of the King.
The following is part of the proclamation of an addition to the titles of the King which was made on the 4th of November, 1901:
"Whereas an act was passed in the last session of Parliament, entitled ‘An act to enable His Most Gracious Majesty to make an addition to the royal style and titles in recognition of His Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas,’ which act enacts that it shall be lawful for us, with a view to such recognition as aforesaid of our dominions beyond the seas, by our royal proclamation under the great seal of the United Kingdom issued within six months after the passing of the said act, to make such addition to the style and titles at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its dependencies as to us may seem fit; and
"Whereas our present style and titles are, in the Latin tongue, ‘Edwardus VII Dei Gratia Britanniarum Rex, Fidei Defensor, Indiæ Imperator,’ and in the English tongue, ‘Edward VII, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India,’ we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our privy council, to appoint and declare, and we do hereby, by and with the said advice, appoint and declare that henceforth, so far as conveniently may be, on all occasions and in all instruments wherein our style and titles are used, the following addition shall be made to the style and titles at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its dependencies—that is to say, in the Latin tongue, after the word ‘Britanniarum,’ these words, ‘et terrarum transmarinarum quœ inditione sunt Britannicâ’; and in the English tongue, after the words ‘of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,’ these words, 'and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas.’"
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901-1902. The last year of the Boer-British War. Peace preliminaries. Text of the Treaty concluded.
See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1901-1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901-1902 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY). Treaty with the United States to facilitate the construction of a Ship Canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
See PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1901-1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902. Arbitration and mediation between the Argentine Republic and Chile.
See (in this Volume) ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JANUARY). Agreement in the nature of a Defensive Alliance with Japan.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1902.
{230}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (FEBRUARY). Wei-hai-wei found valueless. Fortification abandoned.
The British public was unpleasantly surprised on the 11th of February, 1902, by an official announcement in Parliament that the fortifying of the port of Wei-hai-wei, on the Chinese coast (extorted from China in 1898 as an offset to the cession of Port Arthur to Russia, had been abandoned, for the reason that military and naval opinion agreed in concluding that the place had no strategic value.
See, in Volume VI. of this work, CHINA: A. D. 1898, MARCH-JULY).
It would not be returned to China, however, having usefulness for experiments in naval gunnery, and as a sanitarium. The announcement drew much sarcasm on the Government.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (February). Opposed deliverances of Lord Rosebery and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman on Irish Home Rule.
See (in this Volume) IRELAND: A. D. 1902 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (MARCH-NOVEMBER). Passage of the Education Act, in the interest of voluntary or church schools. "Passive Resistance" of Nonconformists.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (MAY). Treaty with Abyssinia.
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JUNE-AUGUST). Illness and deferred Coronation of King Edward VII.
While England was preparing, in the last half of June, 1902, for the great ceremony of the Coronation of King Edward VII., appointed to take place on the 26th, disquieting accounts of his Majesty’s health began to appear. Some exposure at Aldershot, during military reviews, had brought on a chill, it was said; and though it was made light of in the reports, there was anxiety abroad. The King and Queen came to London from Windsor on the 23d, and all seemed to promise well. That evening he attended a State banquet; but a little before noon the next morning the nation received a dreadful shock from the announcement: "The King is suffering from perityphlitis [more familiarly known as appendicitis]. The condition on Saturday was so satisfactory that it was hoped that, with care, his Majesty would be able to go through the Coronation ceremonies. On Monday evening a recrudescence became manifest, rendering a surgical operation necessary to-day." A serious disappointment as well as a grave anxiety was produced. Preparations for the pageant and the solemnities of the Coronation had been made on a splendid scale. London was crowded with visitors from all parts of the world, and specially decorated as never before. The sudden descent of grief and fear and gloom on the gayeties of the scene was a transformation which London and England can never forget.
Within three hours from the first startling report the success of the operation was made known. The King had borne it well and was in a satisfactory state. From that time on there were none but good reports. On the 5th of July he was declared to be out of danger. On the 15th he was removed to the royal yacht _Victoria and Albert_ and taken to Cowes. At the end of seven weeks he had recovered so fully as to be able to bear the fatigues and the strain of a trying ceremony, and the King and Queen were crowned in Westminster Abbey on the 9th of August, with somewhat less of magnificent public show than had been prepared for the 26th of June, but nevertheless with regal pomp.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (June-August). Conference with the Prime Ministers of the Self-Governing Colonies.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (July). Resignation of Lord Salisbury. Mr. Balfour’s succession to the Premiership. The new Ministry.
Failing health compelled the Marquis of Salisbury to ask, on the 11th of July, for relief from the cares of the office of Prime Minister. His resignation was accepted, and Mr. Arthur J. Balfour, First Lord of the Treasury in Lord Salisbury’s Ministry, was invited by the King to the vacant place. Some changes in the Cabinet followed, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach retiring from the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, and being succeeded by Mr. C. T. Ritchie; Mr. A. Akers-Douglas entering the Cabinet as Home Secretary; Mr. G. Wyndham continuing in the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, but coming into the Cabinet; Mr. Austen Chamberlain, son of the Right Honorable Joseph Chamberlain, also receiving a Cabinet seat as Postmaster-General.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (August). Passage of Licensing Bill.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (September). Arrangements of the Government with the Cunard Company and the International Mercantile Marine Company.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: INTERNATIONAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902-1904. Coercive proceedings against Venezuela concerted with Germany and Italy. Settlement of Claims secured. Reference to The Hague.
See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1902-1904. The Mission of Colonel Younghusband to Tibet. Its advance in force to Lhasa. The Treaty secured.
See (in this Volume) TIBET: A. D. 1902-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903. Passage of the Land Purchase Act for Ireland.
See (in this Volume) IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1903.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903. Declines to be a party to the building of the Bagdad Railway.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS; TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (March). Debate in Parliament on the South African Labor Question.
See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (March). Passage of the Employment of Children Bill.
See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (June). The Celebration of Empire Day.
A Canadian custom of celebrating Queen Victoria’s birthday, June 24, as Empire Day, was taken up in Great Britain in 1903, and "the movement," says the London _Times_, "has spread with striking rapidity." The day is made especially interesting in the schools, where the morning of the day is given to addresses on citizenship and the Empire and to the singing of patriotic songs, while the afternoon is a half-holiday.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (May-September). Mr. Chamberlain’s declaration for Preferential Trade with the British Colonies. The political commotion excited. Mr. Balfour’s puzzling attitude on the questions raised. It is made clear by the correspondence when Mr. Chamberlain resigns. The latter’s propagandism.
In June, 1902, when, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain addressed the Conference of Prime Ministers from the self-governing British Colonies, his mind was manifestly not prepared to accept as a practicable proposition their request that the United Kingdom would grant "preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the Colonies."
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1902)
{231}
"Preferential treatment" meant an Imperial protective-tariff policy, with discrimination of duties in favor of imports from British colonies. As the products of the colonies were mostly food stuffs and raw materials for manufacture, it meant a taxing of the supplies of these to British tables and British industries from every source outside the colonies. It meant an artificial higher pricing in the market of the British Isles for everything in which cost bears hardest on the livelihood and the living of their people. Mr. Chamberlain, in 1902, was waxing ardent in the high mission he had undertaken, of unifying and consolidating the great British Empire, strengthening the ties of family between Mother England and her scattered brood; but he had not yet been persuaded that the mother could afford to expend quite so much as this of her own well-being on premiums for the allegiance of her offspring.
In the course of the next year, however, the Colonial Secretary spent some weeks in South Africa, and seems to have been remarkably intensified in his imperializing aims by what he saw and learned. He came home filled with the conviction that England must, for the sake of a really unified and incorporated Empire, abandon the free opening of her markets, which gave her people the cheapest food and the cheapest materials for labor that the world at large could furnish, and must wall them and gate them, with differing keys to the locks, so that her own colonists might be given the "preferential" admission they claim. If he had arrived at that conviction before going to South Africa he had made no sign of it; but it was proclaimed soon after his return, in a speech to his constituents at Birmingham, on the 15th of May, which shook England as no sudden development in politics had done for many years. The time had come, he declared, when the country must decide for or against a deliberate policy of Imperial unification, which required it to reciprocate the preferential tariffs which the colonies had adopted or were offering to adopt. Canada had given Great Britain a preference in her tariff, first of 25 per cent., afterwards increased to 33 1/3 per cent., and was ready to go farther if the British Government would reciprocate, in allowing a drawback on the shilling corn duty (a duty which had been levied for a year past, and was about to be removed). At the Colonial Conference of the previous year the representatives of Australia and New Zealand had expressed readiness to act on the same line. A recent conference of the British colonies in South Africa had recommended the Legislatures of those colonies to give the Mother Country a similar preference on all dutiable goods of 25 per cent. Whether this policy of the colonies should be developed in the future or withdrawn depended now on the treatment given to it by the people of Great Britain.
"The people of the Empire," continued Mr. Chamberlain, "have two alternatives before them. They may maintain if they like in all its severity the interpretation—in my mind an entirely artificial and wrong interpretation—which has been placed on the doctrines of Free Trade by a small remnant of the Little Englanders, of the Manchester school, who now profess to be the sole repositories of the doctrines of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright. They may maintain that policy in all its severity, though it is repudiated by every other nation and by all your own Colonies. In that case they will be absolutely precluded either from giving any kind of preference or favour to any of their Colonies abroad, or even protecting their Colonies abroad when they offer to favour us. That is the first alternative. The second alternative is that we should insist that we will not be bound by any purely technical definition of Free Trade, that, while we seek as one chief object free interchange of trade and commerce between ourselves and all the nations of the world, we will, nevertheless, recover our freedom, resume that power of negotiation and, if necessary, retaliation whenever our own interests or our relation between our Colonies and ourselves are threatened by other people.
"I leave the matter," said Mr. Chamberlain, "in your hands. I desire that a discussion on this subject should be opened. The time has not yet come to settle it, but it seems to me that for good or for evil this is an issue much greater in its consequences than any of our local disputes. Make a mistake in legislation. Yet it can be corrected. Make a mistake in your Imperial policy. It is irretrievable. You have an opportunity; you will never have it again."
Naturally this speech, from a Minister of the Crown, as important and influential in the Government and in his party as Mr. Chamberlain, caused an immense political commotion. It had suddenly injected a new issue into the politics of the United Kingdom, involving some reconstruction of the party in possession of power, and a fundamental readjustment of principles in some part of it, more or less, according to the following that Mr. Chamberlain secured. Would he leave the Ministry or the Ministry leave him?—was the question of the hour. It remained unanswered for three months or more, while controversy over the propositions of Mr. Chamberlain raged and the situation became more puzzling every day. Meantime the head of the Government, Mr. Balfour, was acting like a faithful adherent to the English principle of freedom in trade, by advocating a repeal of the incongruous corn duty levied the year before, but speaking, at the same time, like a man of open mind on the question of preferential trade, treating it as one that demanded careful thought. "If foreign countries," he said, "should take the view that our self-governing colonies could be treated as separate nations we must resist their policy by fiscal retaliation. There must be a weapon to our hands with which to meet those who might attempt to disintegrate the Empire by fiscal means. The question whether we should be justified in raising revenue with the object of drawing the different portions of the Empire more closely together was certainly well worth consideration."
All that he said in these months conveyed the impression that he was in an undetermined, waiting state of mind on the question raised by Mr. Chamberlain, not yet convinced that his colleague should be supported in the new policy proposed, but quite likely to be. That, however, was not the attitude in which he could hold the two coalesced parties, Conservative and Liberal Union, that were behind him in the Government. The issue had instant activity there, dividing both. The Premier could suppress debate on it in Parliament, as he did, but everywhere else in the kingdom the rage of controversy gathered heat, and party lines on the side of the Government were rapidly confused. Two members of the Cabinet resigned, while Mr. Chamberlain kept his place in it until the 9th of September, when he addressed to Mr. Balfour a letter which offered his resignation, for reasons stated as follows:
{232}
"Owing to admitted differences of opinion in the Unionist party the political organisations of the party were paralysed and our opponents have had full possession of the field. … I recognise that serious prejudice has been created, and that, while the people generally are alive to the danger of unrestricted competition on the part of those foreign countries that close their markets to us while finding in our market an outlet for their surplus production, they have not yet appreciated the importance to our trade of Colonial markets, nor the danger of losing them if we do not meet in some way their natural and patriotic desire for preferential trade.
"The result is that, for the present at any rate, a preferential agreement with our Colonies involving any new duty, however small, on articles of food hitherto untaxed is, even if accompanied by a reduction of taxation on other articles of food of equally universal consumption, unacceptable to the majority in the constituencies. …
"I suggest that you should limit the present policy of the Government to the assertion of our freedom in the case of all commercial relations with foreign countries, and that you should agree to my tendering my resignation of my present office to his Majesty and devoting myself to the work of explaining and popularising those principles of Imperial union which my experience has convinced me are essential to our future welfare and prosperity."
Mr. Balfour’s reply to this, when published, disclosed the fact that he was wholly in agreement with Mr. Chamberlain, and that they were now parting company in order to pursue a common purpose more effectually on different lines. Both saw that England was not to be drawn easily away from its fundamental belief in freedom of trade; that what they had undertaken would require much persuasive labor and considerable time, if accomplished at all; wherefore Mr. Chamberlain accepted an assignment to the missionary field of the imperialist cause, while Mr. Balfour would continue his endeavor to hold a party in waiting for the fruits of the mission, and in possession of the government as long as circumstances might permit. The programme was disclosed frankly in the two letters. In that of Mr. Balfour he said:
"Agreeing as I do with you that the time has come when a change should be made in the fiscal canons by which we have bound ourselves in our commercial dealings with other Governments, it seems paradoxical, indeed, that you should leave the Cabinet at the time that others of my colleagues are leaving it who disagree on that very point with us both. Yet I can not but admit, however reluctantly, that there is some force in the arguments with which you support that course, based as they are upon your special and personal relation to that portion of the controversy which deals with Colonial preference. You have done more than any man, living or dead, to bring home to the citizens of the Empire the consciousness of Imperial obligation, and the interdependence between the various fragments into which the Empire is geographically divided. I believe you to be right in holding that this interdependence should find expression in our commercial relations as well as in our political and military relations. I believe with you that closer fiscal union between the Mother Country and her Colonies would be good for the trade of both, and that, if much closer union could be established on fitting terms, its advantage to both parties would increase as the years went on and as the Colonies grew in wealth and population.
"If there ever has been any difference between us in connection with this matter it has only been with regard to the practicability of a proposal which would seem to require, on the part of the Colonies, a limitation in the all-round development of a protective policy, and on the part of this country the establishment of a preference in favour of important Colonial products. On the first of these requirements I say nothing, but if the second involves, as it almost certainly does, taxation, however light, upon food stuffs, I am convinced with you that public opinion is not yet ripe for such an arrangement. …
"I feel, however, deeply concerned that you should regard this conclusion, however well founded, as one which makes it difficult for you, in your very special circumstances, to remain a member of the Government. Yet I do not venture, in a matter so strictly personal, to raise any objection.
"If you think you can best serve the interests of Imperial unity, for which you have done so much, by pressing your views on Colonial preference with the freedom which is possible in an independent position, but is hardly compatible with office, how can I criticise your determination? The loss to the Government is great, but the gain to the cause you have at heart may be greater still. If so, what can I do but acquiesce?"
So Mr. Chamberlain left the Cabinet, with Mr. Balfour’s blessing and God-speed, and went out to preach the gospel of commercial imperialism, under the more carefully chosen name of "fiscal reform." His co-laborer, who stayed at the helm of State, was so favored by circumstances as to hold it for somewhat more than another year. But the propagandism made no satisfying progress in that year; it seems doubtful, indeed, if Mr. Chamberlain won as many disciples as he lost from his first following.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (August). Employment of Children Act.
See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS WORKERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (August). Communication to the Powers that were parties to the Berlin Act of 1884-1885, asking their attention to the Administration of the Congo State.
See (in this Volume) CONGO STATE: A. D. 1903-1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903 (October). Settlement of the Alaska boundary question.
See (in this Volume) ALASKA: A. D. 1903.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1903-1904. Canadian measures to establish British sovereignty over land and sea of Hudson Bay region.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1903-1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904. Arbitration of boundary dispute between British Guiana and Brazil.
See (in this Volume) BRAZIL: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904. Her rivals in the Persian Gulf.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1904.
{233}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (April). The agreements of the Entente Cordiale with France.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (April-August). Agitation over the Licensing Bill, which passed Parliament after much bitter debate.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (July). The question of Church Attendance in school hours.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1904.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904 (October). The Dogger Bank incident of the voyage of the Russian Baltic Fleet.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (OCTOBER-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1904-1905. The Esher Army Commission and its Report.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905. Reopened controversy with the United States over Newfoundland Fisheries questions.
See (in this Volume) NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905. Action with other Powers in forcing financial reforms in Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905. Unemployed Workmen Act.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (March). Partially Representative Legislative Assembly created in the Transvaal.
See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1905-1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (April). Order relating to Underfed School Children.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (April). Treaty with Nicaragua concerning the Mosquito Territory.
See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA: NICARAGUA: A. D. 1905.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (June). Change in the office of Speaker of the House of Commons.
After a service of more than ten years in the speaker’s chair of the House of Commons, Mr. W. C. Gully resigned, on account of failing health, and the Deputy Speaker, Mr. J. W. Lowther, was chosen in his place, with no dissent. Subsequently, Mr. Gully was raised to the peerage and received an annual grant of £5000 for life.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (June). Frauds in the sale of surplus army stores in South Africa.
An exciting scandal, connected with the sale of surplus army stores, in South Africa, after the closing of the Boer War, came to light in June. It was found that stores had been sold to certain contractors at very low prices, and then repurchased at high figures under new contracts entered into with the same contractors. Several army officers, including two colonels, were implicated in what the investigating committee described mildly as "a cleverly arranged contrivance."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (August). New Defensive Agreement with Japan.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (August). Resignation of the Viceroyalty of India by Lord Curzon.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1905 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906. Resignation of the Balfour Ministry. The Liberal Party in power. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman Prime Minister. His Cabinet. His attitude toward Ireland. Strength of the Labor Party in Parliament. Its representative in the Cabinet.
The Education Act of 1902, the apostasy of Mr. Chamberlain and his Conservative Unionist followers from British Free Trade principles, proclaimed in 1903, and the Licensing Act of 1904, had each, in turn, been productive of bitter disagreements and ruptures which rapidly lowered the strength of the party in power. It had been in control of the Government since 1895, when its opposition to Irish Home Rule was endorsed by a large majority. The next election, in 1900, during the war in South Africa, reinforced its Parliamentary support, and it could count, during the two years following, on more than 400 votes in the House of Commons, against about 268. After that period its Parliamentary majority in the popular chamber ran down, until, in the later months of 1905, it was no more than 75 or 76. This would have been an ample majority if it had represented an equivalent preponderance of public support, which, manifestly, it did not. For three years the "by-elections,"—that is, the special elections ordered for filling vacancies in the House as they occurred,—had been going steadily against the Government, and nobody doubted that a general election would throw it out. It was challenged again and again to give the country an opportunity to express its feeling in the matter, by a dissolution of Parliament, without waiting for any nearer approach to the end of the term. This it would not do; but, on the 4th of December, 1905, the Premier, Mr. Balfour, surprised the country, and likewise his own Cabinet, it was said, by placing his resignation in the hands of the King.
This proceeding was regarded as an artful manoeuvre in politics, for the embarrassment of the opposition. As explained at the time by a journalist who wrote of it on the side of the latter,—"The Liberals naturally desired that the country should have an opportunity of going to the polls on the clear issue raised by the record of ten years of Tory administration. They regarded Mr. Balfour and his party as being in the dock, and before they took office they wished to have the verdict of the country returned by the votes of the electors. But this, for equally obvious reasons, Mr. Balfour wished to avoid. By resigning now, he compelled his opponents to undertake the task, first of forming a new administration, with all the risks which it involves of personal slight and sectional differences, and, secondly, of facing the risk of any untoward incident arising in the next few weeks which might be used against the new-born government. It also would enable them to obscure to a certain extent the real issue before the country. Instead of simply voting for or against Mr. Balfour and his administration, they would be asked to express their opinion upon a new ministry, which had not had any opportunity of giving the country a taste of its quality. But as Mr. Balfour could not be compelled to stay in when he had made up his mind to go out, and as it was such a relief to get rid of him on any terms, the Liberals consented to face the disadvantages of taking office before the dissolution."
{234}
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was invited by the King to form a Ministry, and accepted the Commission. The organization of his Cabinet was completed within the week following Mr. Balfour’s resignation, and it took office at once. Parliament was dissolved on the 8th of January, 1906, and a new Parliament was summoned to meet on February 13th. Elections began on the 12th of January and were finished for the most part by the 19th. In their total result, they returned 375 Liberals to the House of Commons, 55 Labor representatives, who would act on most questions with the Liberals, and 83 Irish Nationalists, whose attitude towards the new Ministry would depend upon its attitude on Irish questions, and seemed more likely to be friendly than otherwise. Against this array on the side of Sir Henry and his colleagues, of pledged partisans and conditional allies, the Conservative Unionists had Secured an Opposition in the House that numbered only 157. The political overturn was one of the most remarkable that the United Kingdom has ever known.
The Cabinet as formed when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman took office was made up as follows:
Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert T. Reid.
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Herbert H. Asquith.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Edward Grey.
Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Earl of Elgin.
Secretary of State for War, Richard B. Haldane.
Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Herbert J. Gladstone.
Secretary of State for India, John Morley.
First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Tweedmouth.
President of the Board of Trade, David Lloyd-George.
President of the Local Government Board, John Burns.
Chief Secretary for Scotland, John Sinclair.
President of the Board of Agriculture, Earl Carrington.
Postmaster-General, Sydney C. Buxton.
Chief Secretary for Ireland, James Bryce.
Lord President of the Council, the Earl of Crewe.
Lord of the Privy Seal, the Marquis of Ripon.
President of the Board of Education, Augustine Birrell.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Sir Henry H. Fowler.
The following were not members of the cabinet, but formed part of the administration:
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Aberdeen.
Under Secretary for the Colonies, Winston L. Churchill.
First Commissioner of Works, Louis Vernon-Harcourt.
Attorney-General, John Lawson Walton.
Solicitor-General, William S. Robson.
That Lord Rosebery had no place in the new Liberal administration was due to his wide disagreement with most of the leaders of his party on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. When he succeeded Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister, in 1894, he quite distinctly discarded that line of Irish policy, and his antagonism to it had undergone no change.
See, in Volume VI. of this work, ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895)
On the other hand, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had remained faithfully sympathetic with Mr. Gladstone’s idea of Ireland’s due from England, and had reannounced his standing on it in a recent speech. "My opinion," he said, "has long been known to you. It is that the only way of healing the evils of Ireland,—difficulties of her administration, of giving contentment and prosperity to her people, and of making her a strength instead of a weakness to the empire,—is that the Irish people should have the management of their own domestic affairs; and so far from this opinion fading and dwindling as the years pass, it is becoming stronger, and, what is more, I have more confidence in its realization. … If I were asked for advice by an ardent Nationalist, I would say my desire is to see the effective management of Irish affairs in the hands of a representative Irish party. … I trust that the opportunity of making a great advance on this question of Irish government will not long be delayed, and when that opportunity comes my firm belief is that a greater measure of agreement than hitherto as to the ultimate solution will be found possible, and that a keener appreciation will be felt of the benefits that will flow to the Irish communities and British people throughout the world, and that Ireland, from being disaffected, impoverished, and discouraged, will take its place as a strong, harmonious, and contented portion of the empire."
That Sir Henry, maintaining this posture on the Irish question of questions, could be the accepted leader of the Liberal party and the Premier of Government, afforded clear evidence that the party, and the country which confided power to that party, were at least more nearly prepared to make the great concession to Ireland than they were to refuse it; but the question entered slightly into the parliamentary canvass, though the Conservative-Unionists strove hard to make it the dominant issue. The public mind was occupied so fully with the fiscal and educational controversies of the last three years that the motives in its voting came mostly from them. The mandates of the vote were understood to be especially for the amending of recent legislation on those subjects and on the terms of the licensing of the liquor trade. It was equally understood that Irish measures in the Gladstone spirit should be looked for, not hastily undertaken, but in due time.
The fact of most impressive significance in the result of the parliamentary elections was the sudden weight that had been given in the House of Commons to the representation of Labor by laboring men. Since 1903 the Labor Party had emerged in British politics as a force to be taken into serious account.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1900-1906; 1903; and SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
Of its 55 members in the new Parliament a considerable number had been elected by a combination of Liberal and Labor votes; but the same combination went as often to the increase of the Liberal representation. One large section of the Labor voters, organized under the name of the Independent Labor Party, stood aloof from such alliances entirely. It had been formed some years before, under the lead of Mr. Keir Hardie, a Scottish miner, with Socialistic beliefs, but opposed to the aims of the Marxian Socialists, and expecting nothing substantially beneficial to the working class from any political party. His mission was to create a Labor Party that would fight its own battles on its own ground. He made no great headway until the Taff Vale decision of 1902 roused the British Trade Unions to fight for their lives. That brought them into the ranks of the Independent Labor Party, and prepared it for the powerful showing it made in the elections of January, 1906, when it polled 303,000 votes, and elected 30 members who are free lances in the House. The remaining 25 Labor Members act with these on labor questions, but otherwise are to be reckoned as allies of the Liberal Party.
{235}
Foremost among these latter is Mr. John Burns, who represents the Labor Party not only in Parliament but in the Ministry of Government, being the first of his class to be called to a Cabinet seat. A London editor who wrote of him when he took that seat said:
"He has been a working engineer, a strike leader, labor agitator, a London County Councilor for eighteen years, and member of Parliament for fourteen. He is a great leader who never had a party, but whose influence has been felt in every labor movement in England for the last twenty years. The labor and social policy of the London County Council has been largely inspired and directed by him. He has also molded labor legislation in Parliament. Mr. Burns has ‘scorned delights and lived laborious days’ for the sake of the workers. He is an avowed Socialist. He has never changed his principles, only modified his methods. He is a real Fabian, a skillful opportunist, a tireless worker, and a first-rate organizer. Since he became a Socialist who does things, he has been ostracized by the Socialists who only agitate. Mr. Burns is exercising great influence within the Cabinet, and is one of the men in the confidence and in the secrets of the Prime Minister, who seeks his advice in many matters outside Mr. Burns’s department."
The same writer gave the following account of the many important duties and great responsibilities of the office filled by Mr. Burns, as the President of the Local Government Board, which supervises the administration of local government in all England and Wales:
"As President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Burns has multifarious duties committed to his charge. He has to sanction local loans, supervise the finances of local authorities, hold inquiries into proposed new undertakings, exercise the (almost) legislative powers which Parliament has delegated to him by way of provisional orders, and is armed with large powers of initiative, inspection, revision, and veto, so that in some respects he can revolutionize the whole system of local administration. In the domain of Poor Law his authority is paramount. He revises, for example, the rules and regulations which guide the system of relief and the administration of the Poor Law, passes plans for new workhouses, settles the wages of the nurses and porters, and fixes the amount of snuff (if any) which a pauper may receive. Sanitary legislation is also under his supervision, as he acts as Minister of Public Health, and beyond the more strictly local governmental functions belonging to his department there is the social side of his work, such as the administration of the Allotments Acts, the Unemployed Act, inquiring into housing conditions, etc."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906. Sudden German hostility to the Anglo-French agreement concerning Morocco. Demand for an International Conference. The Conference at Algeciras and the Act signed there.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906. Pan-Islamic agitation in Egypt. Menacing attitude of Turkey. The Tabah incident.
See (in this Volume) EGYPT: A. D. 1905-1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909. Action in Persia during the Constitutional Revolution.
See (in this Volume) Persia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909. The Aliens Act. A new policy of restriction on the admission of aliens. Its working.
See (in this Volume) IMMIGRATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909. Progress in cooperative organizations of industry.
See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906. Prevention of Corruption Act.
See (in this Volume) CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (March). Report of Royal Commission on Labor Disputes.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (April). Convention for determining and marking the Alaska Boundary Line.
See (in this Volume) ALASKA: A. D. 1906.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (April-December). Fate of the Liberal Education Bill, passed by the Commons and killed by Amendments in the House of Lords. Resolution of the Commons, contemplating a change of Constitutional Law respecting the Legislative Powers of the House of Lords.
The Education Bill was brought forward by the Government in April and passed by the Commons in December.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1906
When the bill had been killed by destructive amendments in the House of Lords, the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, proposed to the House of Commons a resolution, which was adopted, declaring that "the power of the other house to alter or reject bills passed by this house should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the House of Commons shall prevail." In plainer words, this proposed an amendment of what has been, since 1832, an unwritten but understood rule of the British Constitution, namely, that the House of Lords cannot defeat a measure which has been passed by the Commons in successive parliaments, and thus certified, by an intervening election, as being the embodiment of a popular demand. The proposed amendment is to give the force of law to a repeated enactment of the House of Commons, even "within the limits of a single Parliament," and without the intervention of an election.
The Premier has explained that this resolution is adopted only to foreshadow action which the Government intends to take at some convenient future time. So far as indicated by the Premier’s resolution, he and his colleagues, if they do anything affecting the peers in Parliament, will not touch the existing composition of the aristocratic house, but will only shorten the suspense in which it may hold legislation that is persisted in by the popular house. As now exercised, the practical effect of the suspensive veto of the Lords, if not submitted to by the government, is to bring about what is actually a referendum of the question at issue to the people. The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate the referendum and empower the Commons to override the opposition of the Lords.
{236}
The legislative function of the House of Lords would not differ substantially then from that performed by the President of the United States. Acts of Congress require the approval of the President to make them law. His disapproval sends them back to Congress for reenactment, if two-thirds of both houses persist in them; annulling them if they do not. The function is simply a critical one, and involves no exercise of legislative powers, if the language of our Constitution is correct; for that instrument, in the first section of its first article, says: "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." Thus the reference of legislation to the President for his approval or disapproval is not recognized as a grant to him of participation in the exercise of legislative powers."
In this view the British House of Lords, when its part in legislation is reduced, like that of the American President, to mere criticism, expressed in approval or a suspensive veto, cannot rightly be regarded as a legislative body, and Parliament can hardly be counted among the bicameral legislatures, as we have counted it hitherto. The House of Commons will hold all the powers of legislation; the House of Lords will be its official critic, commissioned only to make it think twice in the enactment of some of its laws.
The King has no voice now in the making of British laws, although, when his prerogatives are described, it is still said that "he may refuse the royal assent to any bills." Two hundred years ago it ceased to be prudent for royalty to exercise that prerogative, and Queen Anne, in 1707, asserted it in practice for the last time. The sovereigns of the reigning House of Hanover have never enjoyed the satisfaction of refusing assent to an act of Parliament. Even George III. did not venture it, though he stoutly asserted his right.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (May). Withdrawal of the last British garrison from Canada.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1906 (MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (SEPTEMBER). Army Order instituting the General Staff.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (December). Broadened self-government extended to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony.
See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1905-1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1906 (December). Passage of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907. Drink in its relation to crime.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August). Act legalizing Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister.
The following are the main provisions of the Act to legalize marriage with a deceased wife’s sister which, after many years of agitation by its advocates and many defeats in Parliament, was passed finally in 1907:
"1. No marriage heretofore or hereafter contracted between a man and his deceased wife’s sister, within the realm or without, shall be deemed to have been or shall be void or voidable, as a civil contract, by reason only of such affinity: Provided always that no clergyman in holy orders of the Church of England shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure, whether civil or ecclesiastical, for anything done or omitted to be done by him in the performance of the duties of his office to which suit, penalty, or censure he would not have been liable if this Act had not been passed:
"Provided also that when any minister of any church or chapel of the Church of England shall refuse to perform such marriage service between any persons who, but for such refusal, would be entitled to have the same service performed in such church or chapel, such minister may permit any other clergyman in holy orders in the Church of England, entitled to officiate within the diocese in which such church or chapel is situate, to perform such marriage service in such church or chapel.
"Provided also that in case, before the passing of this Act, any such marriage shall have been annulled, or either party thereto (after the marriage and during the life of the other) shall have lawfully married another, it shall be deemed to have become and to be void upon and after the day upon which it was so annulled, or upon which either party thereto lawfully married another as aforesaid.
"2. No right, title, estate or interest, whether in possession or expectancy, and whether vested or contingent at the time of the passing of this Act, existing in, to, or in respect of, any dignity, title of honour, or property, and no act or thing lawfully done or omitted before the passing of this Act shall be prejudicially affected nor shall any will be deemed to have been revoked by reason of any marriage heretofore contracted as aforesaid being made valid by this Act.
"3. (1) Nothing in this Act shall remove wives from the class of persons adultery with whom constitutes a right, on the part of wives, to sue for divorce under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857.
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, it shall not be lawful for a man to marry the sister of his divorced wife, or of his wife by whom he has been divorced, during the lifetime of such wife.
"4. Nothing in this Act shall relieve a clergyman in holy orders of the Church of England from any ecclesiastical censure to which he would have been liable if this Act had not been passed by reason of his having contracted or hereafter contracting a marriage with his deceased wife’s sister.
"5. In this Act the word ‘sister’ shall include a sister of the half-blood."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907. Probation of Offenders Act.
See (in this Volume) CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY: PROBATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907. French testimony to the good work of the English in Egypt.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1907 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (April-May). Conference of Imperial and Colonial Ministers at London. Discussing Preferential Trade, Imperial Defence, and other subjects. Resolutions adopted.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (May). Proposed Councils Bill for Ireland rejected by the Irish National Party.
See (in this Volume) IRELAND: A. D. 1907 (May).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (July). Capture of Kaid Sir Harry MacLean in Morocco for ransom, by Raisuli.
See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1904-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August). Convention with Russia containing arrangements on the subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet.
See EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August). Establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal.
See (in this Volume) LAW, AND ITS COURTS: ENGLAND.
{237}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August). Qualification of women for election to County and Borough Councils.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (August). Patents and Designs Act.
See (in this Volume) PATENTS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November). Abortive Compromise Education Bill.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November). Treaty with France, Germany, Norway, and Russia guaranteeing the integrity of Norway.
See ENGLAND: EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907 (November). Treaty with France concerning Death Duties.
See (in this Volume) DEATH DUTIES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908. Institution of the Territorial Force.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908. Proposals in the House of Lords of Reform in its Constitution.
Consequent, no doubt, on the increase of popular hostility to the House of Lords which it had provoked by its dealing with the Education Bill of 1906, and the serious threatenings of an undertaking in the House of Commons to "end or mend" it as a branch of Parliament, the Lords, in 1907, gave thought among themselves to the expediency of a constitutional reformation of their House. In February, a bill was proposed to them by Lord Newton which provided in its first two articles as follows:
"1. (1) After the termination of the present session of Parliament a writ of summons to attend and to sit and vote in the House of Lords shall not be issued to any temporal peer of the peerage of England entitled by descent to an hereditary seat in the House of Lords (in this Act referred to as an hereditary peer), unless he is a representative or a qualified hereditary peer within the meaning of this Act, nor to any lord spiritual, unless he is a representative lord spiritual within the meaning of this Act."
"2. For the purposes of this Act the expression ‘qualified hereditary peer’ means an hereditary peer who possesses any of the qualifications specified in the First Schedule to this Act."
The schedule referred to was as follows:
"QUALIFICATIONS ENTITLING AN HEREDITARY PEER TO A WRIT OF SUMMONS: I. The holding at any time of any of the following Offices:—
1. High judicial office, within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Acts, 1876 and 1887.
2. The office of First Lord of the Treasury, Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Exchequer, President of the Council, or Head (not being a permanent Civil Servant) of any other Government Department.
3. The office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
4. Office of Viceroy of India, or a Governor of the Presidency of Madras or Bombay, or of Lieutenant-Governor of any Province of India.
5. Office of Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada or of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of High Commissioner of South Africa, or of Governor of any Colony.
6. The Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary, or permanent Under Secretary, in any Government Department.
7. Office of Lord of the Admiralty or member of the Army Council.
8. Office of Minister plenipotentiary, or any higher office, in His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service.
9. Office of Vice-Admiral, or any higher office, in His Majesty’s Naval Forces, or of Lieutenant-General, or any higher office, in His Majesty’s Land Forces.
"II. Election to serve in the House of Commons on not less than two occasions before succeeding to the peerage."
In addition to the hereditary peers thus qualified to sit in the House of Lords as proposed to be reformed, the Bill provided for the election by the peers, from their own number, of representatives, to the extent of one-fourth of their whole number; and likewise for the election by the lords spiritual, from their ranks, of representatives in the same proportion of number; such representatives to form part of the House of Lords in Parliament. It authorized, further, the appointment by the King of peers for life, to be "peers of Parliament," these never to exceed one hundred in number.
Debate on the Bill in May resulted in the substitution for it of a resolution, that "a Select Committee be appointed to consider the suggestions which have from time to time been made for increasing the efficiency of the House of Lords in matters affecting legislation, and to report as to the desirability of adopting them, either in their original or in some modified form." The report of the Committee (twenty-five in number, having Lord Rosebery for its elected chairman) was not brought in until near the close of the following year. Its recommendations were considerably on the lines of the Bill described above. It suggested that the reformed House of Lords should be made up of three classes of members, namely, hereditary peers who had held certain high public offices— much the same as those scheduled in Lord Newton’s Bill; two hundred representative "Peers of Parliament," elected from the whole body of the peerage, not for life, but for a single Parliament, and ten lords spiritual, to include the two archbishops and eight bishops to be elected. The self-governing colonies, in the judgment of the Committee, should be represented in the House of Lords, and twenty years of service in the House of Commons should entitle an Irish peer to a seat in it.
The plan submitted by the Committee would reduce the House from 617 members to about 350. No action has been taken on the report.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908. The Small Holdings Act. The first year of its operation.
In 1907 an Act passed Parliament which provided for the acquisition by local authorities of land to be divided into small holdings for sale or lease to buyers or tenants who could not otherwise be placed on it for self-support. The results from the first year’s operation of the Act was reported in September, 1909, by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, which administers the law. The following are statements from the report of the Board:
"Stated shortly, the result, so far as small holdings are concerned, of the first year’s work since the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, came into operation has been that 23,285 applications have been received by county councils for 373,601 acres, that 13,202 applicants have been approved provisionally as suitable, that the estimated quantity of land required for the suitable applicants is 185,098 acres, that 21,417 acres have been acquired by county councils, of which 11,346 acres have been purchased for £370,965, and 10,071 acres leased for total rents amounting to £11,209, that the land acquired will provide for about 1,500 of the applicants, and that 504 of them were in actual possession of their holdings on December 31, 1908.
{238}
"It may seem at first sight that the progress that has been made in satisfying the keen demand for small holdings which the Act has disclosed has been small, but the figures do not give at all an adequate idea of the amount of work that has been actually done. It must be remembered that practically the whole of the first six months of the year were occupied in the preliminary work of constituting committees, issuing forms, receiving and tabulating applications and holding local inquiries, and that until this work was completed little progress could be made in the acquisition of land. … The rate at which land is being acquired is now increasing rapidly, and we have little doubt that by Michaelmas, 1909, not less than 50,000 acres will have been obtained. In addition to the holdings which have been provided by county councils, the returns we have obtained show that over 700 applicants have been supplied with holdings by landowners direct, mainly through the intervention of the councils.
"In considering the results already accomplished it must also be borne in mind that the problem is to fit particular men to particular land, and not merely to acquire whatever land may be in the market and to offer it in small holdings. The great majority of the applicants desire land in close proximity to their homes, and it is obviously more difficult to acquire a large number of detached plots than to take a whole farm or estate and divide it into a number of small holdings. …
"A striking feature of the applications made under the Act has been the small extent to which the applicants desire to purchase their holdings. Out of the 23,295 applications received during the year, only 629, or 2.7 per cent., expressed a desire to purchase. … The Act imposes no direct obligation on councils to provide houses, but we are of opinion that where an applicant desires a holding to which he will devote his whole time and from which he will get his whole living councils should be prepared to erect a house and the necessary buildings."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1908 (December-March). Appeals to other Powers for effective measures to rescue Macedonia from its dreadful state.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909. Anglo-Russian action in Persia.
See (in this Volume) PERSIA: A. D). 1907, and after.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909. The Campaign of the Militant Woman Suffragists or Suffragettes.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909. The disaffection in India. Its character, causes, and meaning. Hindu and Moslem feeling. The past of British Government and its fruits.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909. Negotiation by the President of the Board of Trade of a General System of Conciliation and Arbitration Boards for Settlement of Labor Disputes in the Railway Service.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908. Estimate of King Edward VII. as a Diplomatist.
Mr. Isaac N. Ford, the American newspaper correspondent in London, has much well-informed opinion in Europe and America to support him in the following estimate of the diplomatic influence exerted by King Edward, which he expressed in January, 1908:
"At the opening of King Edward’s reign Berlin was the center of European diplomacy, as Paris had been when Bismarck entered upon his series of machinations and triumphs. The personal ascendency of the German Emperor was unchallenged in Europe. … In the course of seven years conditions have been transformed. London is now the diplomatic capital of Europe. Resentful enemies like France have been reconciled; friendships with America, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Spain have been strengthened; strained relations with Russia and Germany have been eased; and by the alliance with Japan forces have been readjusted for the maintenance of existing order in the Pacific. A new balance of power has been established in Europe, and the diplomatic resources of the British Empire have been reinvigorated and enlarged. While there have been eminent statesmen in the British Foreign Office—Lord Lansdowne and Sir Edward Grey—these transformations have been mainly King Edward’s work. Fifty years hence there may be a true sense of proportion, so that his services as an empire-builder and a peace-maker can be judged aright."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908. Invitation of an International Naval Conference preliminary to the establishment of an International Prize Court.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907 (appended to account of Second Peace Conference at The Hague).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908. Municipal and County Offices opened to Women.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908. North Sea and Baltic agreements.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908. Passage of the Coal Mines Eight Hours Act.
See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908. Rejection of the Liberal Licensing Bill by the House of Lords.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (March). Communication to the Belgian Government respecting obligations involved in its proposed annexation of the Congo State.
See (in this Volume) CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April). Resignation and Death of Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Succession of Herbert H. Asquith.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was forced by ill health to resign the premiership on the 5th of April, 1908, and his death occurred on the 22d of the same month. He was succeeded in the headship of the Government by Mr. Herbert H. Asquith, previously Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose place in the latter office was filled by Mr. David Lloyd-George. Mr. Lloyd-George had been President of the Board of Trade, and that office was now filled by Mr. Winston Churchill, while Mr. Reginald McKenna became First Lord of the Admiralty.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April). Treaty with Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (April). Treaty with the United States respecting the Demarcation of the International Boundary between the United States and Canada.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1908 (APRIL).
{239}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (September). Withdrawal of intervention in Macedonia.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (December). Passage of "The Children Act."
See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS DEPENDENTS AND OFFENDERS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908 (December). The Shipbuilding Agreement between Employers and Trade Unions to prevent strikes and lockouts.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1908.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909. Attitude on the question of the Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909. Old Age Pensions Act. Its working. Its disclosures of poverty.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS, &c.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1908-1909. Passage of the Indian Councils Bill. Its provisions for popular representation in the Legislative Councils of India.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1908-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Chief source of Food Supplies.
See (in this Volume) ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Concentration of Wealth.
See (in this Volume) WEALTH, THE PROBLEMS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Development and Road Improvement Funds Act.
See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: GREAT BRITAIN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Naval questions. "Dreadnought" building. Distrust of Germany. The Territorial Force, etc.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Official reports and statements concerning Public Education.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Passage of the Housing and Town-planning Act.
See (in this Volume) SOCIAL BETTERMENT: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Principal Socialist organizations.
See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Report of Royal Commission on the working of the Poor Laws and Relief Systems, and the existing pauperism of the United Kingdom.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909. Summary of the total prospective military defensive strength of the Empire.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (January). The Waterways Treaty with the United States, concerning waters along the Canadian boundary.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February). The Opening of Parliament.
The session of Parliament was opened by the King with due form and ceremony on February 16. "The Royal procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster," says a report of the occasion, "took place in the dim grey light of a typical February afternoon, and the pageant lost much of its beauty in consequence. In spite of the cold wind and the absence of the genial sunshine which is such a valuable asset on occasions of spectacular display, there appeared to be as many people as ever along the route of the procession. These formal openings of Parliament, which have become customary since the beginning of the present reign, are clearly popular with those of the King’s subjects who know nothing, except by hearsay, of the impressive scenes which are to be witnessed in the House of Lords. The immense crowds who assembled to watch the King and Queen pass yesterday, waiting patiently for hours in order to enjoy a few minutes’ ecstatic sight-seeing, welcomed their Majesties with a cordiality of the meaning of which there could be no doubt. The King and Queen, in their wonderful gold coach, with its sides of glass, must have been gratified with the respect and affection which were manifested from all quarters."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February). Debate in Parliament on the annexation of the Congo State by Belgium. Recognition of the annexation dependent on reforms.
See (in this Volume) CONGO STATE: A. D. 1906-1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (February). Represented in International Opium Commission at Shanghai.
See (in this Volume) OPIUM PROBLEM.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March). Representation of the People Bill. Proposed Universal Suffrage, including women. Its second reading.
On the 20th of March, 1909, the second reading of a bill described as "the Representation of the People Bill" was moved and seconded in the House of Commons. Its provisions were substantially for universal suffrage, including women. In explaining the measure, the member who moved the second reading—a representative of the Labor party, Mr. Howard—said:
"It was difficult, if not almost impossible, to deal with a reform of the franchise without at the same time dealing with woman suffrage, and it was difficult to deal with woman enfranchisement without at the same time making some alteration in the existing franchise law which should meet the condition of the new elements proposed to be placed on the register. The House must face the situation as a whole and handle the two reforms in one scheme, because by a coordinated Bill there would be a better chance of getting nearer a settlement. In the Bill that he submitted to the House there was no abolition of any old franchise. It proposed to create a residential franchise in order to do away with the hardships which any one with a knowledge of registration knew to exist in connexion with the occupation vote of men. The second clause provided for a restriction of plural voting, and the third clause related to the removal of the sex disqualification."
Before debate began another member presented a monster petition against the political enfranchisement of women, said to contain 243,000 signatures.
The attitude of the Government toward the bill was explained by Mr. Asquith, the Premier. It was well known, he said, that on the issue whether women should be granted the suffrage Ministers were not of one mind. But they were strongly in favour of a wide reform of the existing suffrage. They desired the abolition of plural voting, the disappearance of the artificial distinctions between occupiers and lodgers, the material shortening of the period of qualification, and an effective simplification of the machinery of registration. But any measure to bring about these reforms ought, in his opinion, if it was to take its place on the Statute-book, to proceed from the responsible Government of the day, and to be carefully remoulded in the light of prolonged Parliamentary discussion. For these reasons he thought it was not necessary that the members of the Government should vote for the second reading of the Bill under consideration.
After some hours of debate the closure was moved and the second reading of the bill was carried by 157 votes against 122.
{240}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March). Defeat of the Progressives in the London County Council Election.
See (in this Volume) LONDON: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March). Cession by Siam of suzerainty over three States in the Malay Peninsula.
See (in this Volume) SIAM: A. D. 1909.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (March-July). The question of " Dreadnought" building, with reference to the accelerated expansion of the German Navy. Debates in Parliament and excitement in the country.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April). The National Debt of the United Kingdom.
The following official statement of the national debt of the United Kingdom was published in April, 1909:
"On the 1st April, 1908, the aggregate gross liabilities of the State amounted to £762,326,051. On the 1st April, 1909, the corresponding figure was £754,121,309, showing a reduction of £8,204,742.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April). Announced Governmental projects of Afforestation, and other measures for Development of Natural Resources.
See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: GREAT BRITAIN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April-December). Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget. Its features of taxation, denounced as Socialistic. Seven months of vehement debate. Adopted by the Commons and rejected by the Lords. Warnings to the Lords against their action. Preparation for appeal to the people.
The 29th of April, 1909, when the financial proposals of the Government for meeting the needs of the coming year, called "the Budget," were brought before Parliament, and the 30th of the following November, when, after seven months of arduous and angry debate, and after their adoption by a great majority of the Commons, the Bill embodying them was overwhelmingly rejected by the Lords, will be memorable dates in English history if the consequences of the action of the Peers are what, at this writing, they seem likely to be. Even failing those consequences, the production of the Budget will be in itself an event of no small moment, from what it signifies of the development of democracy in Great Britain.
As a formulated "Finance Bill," the Budget was not submitted to the House of Commons and to the public in print until the 28th of May. It was then entitled "A Bill to grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and the National Debt, and to make other provisions for the Financial Arrangements of the Year." Until then its provisions were known only from the statement of them made four weeks before by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Lloyd-George, in a speech extended through several hours, which even his opponents were forced to characterize as "a wonderful effort."
The Chancellor’s explanation of the Budget rested primarily on the fact that an anticipated deficit of £15,762,000 required to be filled from new sources of revenue. Of the main causes of the deficit he said: "Were I dealing with a shortage due only to a temporary cause like forestalments, I might have resorted to some temporary shift which would have carried me over until next year when the revenue would resume its normal course. But unfortunately I have to reckon not merely with an enormous increase in expenditure this year, but an inevitable expansion of some of the heaviest items in the course of the coming years. What is the increase of expenditure due to? It is very well known that it must be placed to the credit of two items, and practically two items alone. One is the Navy, and the other is old-age pensions. Now I have one observation which I think I am entitled to make about both. … The increased expenditure under both these heads was substantially incurred with the unanimous assent of all political parties in this House. There was, it is true, a protest entered on behalf of honourable members below the gangway against increased expenditure in the Navy, but as far as the overwhelming majority of members in this House are concerned the increase has received their sanction and approval. I am entitled to say more. The attitude of the Government towards these two branches of increased expenditure has not been one of rushing a reluctant House of Commons into expense which it disliked, but rather of resisting appeals coming from all quarters of the House for still further increases under both heads. …
"We are told that we ought not to have touched old-age pensions, at least not at the present moment, when heavy liabilities were in sight in connexion with the defence of the country. I may point out that when we introduced our Old-Age Pensions Bill that emergency had not arisen. But, apart altogether from that, we had no honourable alternative left. We simply honoured a cheque drawn years ago in favour of the aged poor, which bore at its foot the signatures of all the leaders of political parties in this country. They had all promised pensions at election after election, and great political parties have no right to make promises to poor people in return for political support, valuable to them, and all these people had to give, and then time after time return the bill with ‘No assets’ written across it."
Proceeding next to survey the "inevitable expansion" of future expenditure to which he had referred at the outset, and which could be foreseen in connection with the navy and with social reform, the Chancellor dealt at length on the demands that were pressing from the latter side and would not be postponed. "What the Government have to ask themselves," he said, "is this: Can the whole subject of further social reform be postponed until the increasing demands made upon the National Exchequer by the growth of armaments has ceased? Not merely can it be postponed, but ought it to be postponed? Is there the slightest hope that if we deferred consideration of the matter we are likely within a generation to find any more favourable moment for attending to it? I confess that, as to that, I am rather pessimistic. And we have to ask ourselves this further question—If we put off dealing with these social sores are the evils which arise from them not likely to grow and to fester until finally the loss which the country sustains will be infinitely greater than anything it would have to bear in paying the cost of an immediate remedy? {241} There are hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in this country now enduring hardships for which the sternest judge would not hold them responsible; hardships entirely due to circumstances over which they have not the slightest command—the fluctuations and changes of trade, or even of fashions, ill-health, and the premature breakdown or death of the bread-winner. … Last year, while we were discussing the Old-Age Pensions Bill, all parties in this House recognized fully and freely that once we had started on these lines the case for extension was irresistible. The leader of the Opposition, in what I venture to regard as the most notable speeches he has probably delivered during this Parliament, recognized quite boldly that, whichever party was in power, provision would have to be made in some shape or other for those who are out of work through no fault of their own, and those who are incapacitated for work owing to physical causes for which they are not responsible."
The speaker then developed at length the intentions of the Government on these lines of social reform, which will have to include undertakings of some system like the German, of compulsory insurance against sickness, accident and unemployment, and which will have to look to the organization of labor exchanges and to the opening of wider fields for employment, by development of neglected resources of the country, through afforestation, through promotion of agriculture, and the extension and improvement of roads.
And now, at last, he began to unfold his plans for raising the means with which to deal with all these augmented demands on the Government, and started them with a schedule of increased taxes on automobiles. Further details of his scheme are summarized in the following, from _The Times_ "Review of Parliament," next morning:
"The right honourable gentleman was listened to with intense attention when he proceeded to announce an increase of the income-tax and of the estate duty. He proposed that for earned incomes under £2,000 the tax should remain at 9d. but that between £2,000 and £3,000 it should be 1s., and that all other incomes now liable to the shilling tax should pay 1s. 2d. Holding that the family man was entitled to more relief than the bachelor, he proposed that on all incomes under £500, in addition to existing abatements, a special abatement should be allowed of £10 for every child under 16 years of age. He hoped to get £160,000 by the partial restoration of the shilling duty and £3,000,000 from the additional 2d. on the higher incomes. There was also to be a super-tax on incomes exceeding £5,000, to be levied on the amount by which such incomes exceeded £3,000. The tax would be at the rate of 6d. in the pound. Exclamations denoting great disapproval arose from the Unionist benches when this was announced. The yield from this super-tax, Mr. Lloyd-George explained, would be in a full year £2,300,000; but this year not more than £500,000. He next came to the Death duties. There would be no change in the case of estates up to £5,000, but between this limit and the limit of two millions graduation would be steepened. The duty on estates between £5,000 and £10,000 would be 4 per cent.; "between £10,000 and £20,000, 5 per cent.; £20,000 to £40,000, 6 per cent.; £40,000 to £70,000, 7 per cent.; £70,000 to £100,000, 8 per cent.; £100,000 to £150,000, 9 per cent.; £150,000 to £200,000, 10 per cent.; £200,000 to £400,000, 11 per cent.; £400,000 to £600,000, 12 per cent.; £600,000 to £800,000, 13 per cent.; £800,000 to £1,000,000, 14 per cent., and above £1,000,000, 15 per cent. This new scale was estimated to yield £2,550,000 this year, £4,200,000 next year, and afterwards £4,400,000. The settled Estate duty he raised from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. From this source he hoped to get £50,000 this year and £375,000 in 1910-1911. The Legacy and Succession duty was to be raised in some cases from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent., and in all others to 10 per cent. The yield from this next year would be £1,300,000, and would increase in the course of time to £2,150,000. Property alienated _inter vivos_ within five years from death was to be liable to duty. Objects of national and scientific interest would only be chargeable for duty when they were actually sold. There were to be increased duties in bonds to bearer and in stock and share transfers. The estimated yield from the increased Stamp Duties would be this year £650,000.
"It was at this point in his speech that the Chancellor of the Exchequer required rest and that the sitting was suspended. When in half-an-hour’s time it was resumed, the right honourable gentleman continued his speech with renewed vigour. He dealt at considerable length with the subject of licenses, dwelling on the value of the monopoly granted to the liquor trade and arguing that the toll exacted by the public was ludicrously inadequate. He explained in detail a number of changes which he proposed to effect, the chief being a uniform charge of 50 per cent., subject to a _minimum_ rate in urban areas according to population. For clubs there would be a poundage rate of 3d. on the amount taken for the sale of liquor. The yield from his revision of the liquor licensing law would be £2,600,000.
"Then he turned to land, drawing a marked distinction between the agricultural landowner and the urban landowner, of whom he spoke with some scorn. He proposed to levy a tax on the value accruing to land in the future through the enterprise of the community, taking the land apart from buildings and other improvements. This duty of 20 per cent. on unearned increment would be payable on two occasions—when land was sold and when land passed at death. A preliminary valuation of the land at the price which it might be expected to fetch at the present time would be necessary; and as the tax was to be imposed only on the unearned increment subsequently accruing on that valuation, the yield would probably be only £50,000 in 1909, but in future years it should prove a fruitful source of revenue. It was further proposed to levy an annual duty of one halfpenny in the pound on the capital value of undeveloped land and undeveloped minerals. Until the proposed valuation of the land of the United Kingdom on a capital basis was completed, it would be impossible to estimate the yield of this duty, but till then the duty would be calculated on the declarations of the owners, and in the current year he expected it to bring in £350,000. A 10 per cent. reversion duty was to be imposed on any benefit accruing to a lessor on the termination of a lease, and from this source a yield of £100,000 was anticipated. The three land taxes were, accordingly, calculated to produce £500,000 in the current year.
{242}
"He next dealt with indirect taxation. He proposed to raise the present duty on spirits by 3s. 9d. per gallon. This would justify an increase in the retail price of whisky of one half-penny per glass, which would recoup the publican for the additional duty and leave him something more to mitigate the pressure of the new duties on licenses. The yield, during the current year, he estimated at £1,600,000. He also proposed to increase the duty on unmanufactured tobacco from 3s. to 3s. 8d. per lb., with equivalent additions to the rates for cigars, cigarettes, and manufactured tobacco, the return from which he estimated at £1,900,000 during the current year and £2,250,000 for a full year.
"The total estimated revenue was £162,590,000 and the total estimated expenditure £162,102,000, leaving a margin of £488,000 for contingencies. In conclusion, the right honourable gentleman—anticipating the charge that he was imposing very heavy taxation for a time of peace—declared it was a war Budget. The Government had declared implacable war against poverty. It was 8 o’clock when the right honourable gentleman finished, amid the cheers of his supporters."
That Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget was a gage of battle and that the fight over it was fierce is known to everybody, for the din of the conflict penetrated to every corner of every land. The key-note of the outcry against it was sounded in _The Times_ of next morning, which opened its editorial comment with these words:
"One general impression will be very widely made by the complicated and portentous Budget which Mr. Lloyd-George expounded at enormous length yesterday. That is that the huge deficit of nearly sixteen millions is to be raised almost exclusively at the cost of the wealthy and the fairly well-to-do. They are struck at in all sorts of ways, through the income-tax, the legacy duties, the estate duties, the stamps upon their investments, their land, their royalties, their brewery dividends, and their motor-cars. So when Mr. Lloyd-George exclaims rather theatrically—‘Mr. Emmott, this is a war Budget,’ his words carry a meaning which he did not intend. He talks of waging war against poverty, but that is never really waged by unjust exactions from those whose custom prevents a worse poverty than any we know; and whose brains and capital count for at least as much as thews and sinews. Unless men exempt from income-tax either smoke or drink, they do not pay a single penny towards making up a deficit mainly due to a pension scheme of which they reap the whole benefit. The doctrine of social ransom has never been carried quite so far."
So it was branded by its opponents as a "Socialist Budget" and its authors as allies of Socialism, throughout the campaign. This denunciation was applied especially to the tax on unearned increments of value in land, as such increments should occur hereafter. On that point of opposition to the Budget Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of the Government, speaking at a public meeting in London, had this to say: "The increment duty is a tax of 20 per cent. on the increase in the capital value of certain kinds of land which is shown on the occasion of its transfer or devolution, and which is not attributable to the efforts or to the expenditure either of the owner or the occupier. That is what the increment duty is. Now what is it not? I spoke a few moments ago of certain classes of land. Let me ask you to observe, first, what are the kinds of landed property which are altogether exempted from the scope of this taxation. In the first place, all agricultural land which has no building value above its agricultural value; next, small properties occupied by their owners; thirdly, property belonging to local authorities; again, property held for public or charitable purposes; and, finally, property belonging to statutory companies, such as railways, which cannot be used for other than statutory purposes. …
"Now, suppose the case of land which does not fall within any of those exempted categories, how is the duty charged? Here, again, there is a great deal of misapprehension about it, so it is better to state the case as clearly as one can. You start with the site value of the land at the present moment, and by site value—I am not going into technicalities—we mean, roughly speaking, the value of the land divested of the buildings. You do not go back into the past, you take things as they are; you do not rip up the previous history; you do not interfere with existing or past contracts. You give to every man, however he has acquired it, the full and undisturbed enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and property which he at present possesses. Starting with that datum line, you will see that in years to come, when that piece of land is transferred by sale—it may be by lease—or devolves upon death, the site value (you are comparing like with like, mind you) at that date—that is to say, the value after giving the owner and every one who has been interested in the land credit for all expenditure they have made in the way of improvement and development in the interval—comparing site with site, if you find an increment in value there, you say that it is an increment due to the community, to social causes, to causes over which the owner was no more responsible than you or I, and that it is not unfair in point of justice, and that it is in the highest degree expedient in point of policy that the State should be entitled to claim for itself in relief of the necessities of the same community some part—not any exaggerated or exorbitant part—but some part, of the increment which has so accrued. I may point out that there is no duty chargeable at all. So tender has my friend Mr. Lloyd-George (laughter and cheers) been to the interests concerned—he is a man of a most sympathetic nature—sometimes I am disposed to think he is of almost too impressionable a nature when appeals of this kind are addressed to him—so tender has he been of all these interests that he has agreed that no duty should be chargeable unless the increment value amounts to at least 10 per cent., and where it is over, the first 10 per cent. should escape free. That is the increment duty which Lord Rothschild tells you—I think I am not misquoting him—is rank and undiluted Socialism, and which Lord Lansdowne says is going to shake the very foundations of civilized society. …
{243}
"The propriety and justice of taxing this kind of increment, in the case of these classes of land, rests upon the most solid ground both of authority and experience. It has been advocated for generations by the most eminent economists. It has been recommended in one shape or another by more than one Royal Commission. It was approved in principle more than once even by the late non-progressive House of Commons. It has been put in practice in various forms for local purposes in not a few Continental municipalities and in many of our own Colonies, and, I believe, always with successful results. And let me add, by way of climax to that catena of authority, that it is at this moment, or at any rate was a few weeks ago, the alternative proposal put forward by the Conservative party in the Reichstag in Germany—an increment duty, not for local but for Imperial purposes, was the alternative proposal to the Budget of Prince Bülow put forward by the Conservative party in the Reichstag in Germany, and this is rank Socialism!"
Next to the proposed land taxes, the most bitterly opposed feature of the Budget was the increased revenue to be exacted from the licensed monopolists of the liquor trade. Everything, however, in its new taxation was denounced by the Conservatives, who set against it their own project of obtaining increased revenues by returning to the protective tariff which England had abandoned three-quarters of a century ago. The cry for what they preferred to call "tariff reform" had been silenced since the election of 1906, when the electors of the Kingdom rejected Mr. Chamberlain's revived protectionism by an overwhelming vote. Now it was raised again, and fully made the prime article in the Conservative creed, as it had not been before.
It was not until the 4th of November that the Finance Bill was brought to its third reading in the House of Commons, and was passed, by the heavy majority of 379 to 149. From the beginning it was known, of course, that the measure had few friends in the House of Lords, and would go down in defeat there if the Peers ventured to assume the right to negative a money Bill. For many generations they had not disputed the claim of the Commons to exclusive control of revenue legislation; but a theory had now been mooted, that Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget Bill differed from a mere money Bill by carrying Socialistic implications tacked on to it, which the House of Lords was under no obligation to accept. Whether the Lords would or would not be bold enough to act on this theory and throw down the Bill, as they had thrown down so much of the non-financial legislation of the Liberal Government, had been a serious question throughout the debates. Sir Edward Grey said of it, in a speech at Leeds, in August:
"As to the fate of the Budget—Is it going to be destroyed by the House of Lords or is it not? The leaders of the Tory party—with whom the decision rests—are very cautious in expressing their opinions. Some of the rank and file have said the House of Lords is going to destroy the Budget, or have spoken as if it were so. But the leaders—Mr. Balfour, Lord Lansdowne, and so forth—have been very cautious. They are great partisans in this matter of the open door, or, perhaps I should say, of two open doors. They have studiously kept two doors open, and as far as Lord Lansdowne’s utterances go, he has kept the door open for passing the Budget in the House of Lords or rejecting it. He says the House of Lords is bound to decide so that the people should be properly consulted, and that that is the function of the House of Lords, to protect the right of the people to have their say on the subject. A very nice function if only it was performed impartially; but when it is a function which has been in abeyance for the greater part of the last 20 years, and is only to be erected into operation when a Liberal Government comes into office, it is not a function for which we can have much respect. But, nevertheless, it is so in our Constitution at present that the House of Lords is a weapon—a great gun, if you like to call it so—which can be pointed only against Liberal measures—not against Conservative measures—and which is in the hands of the Conservative party. Now there is the Budget going presently to the House of Lords; there is the gun pointing when it arrives there; there is the Conservative finger on the trigger. Are they going to fire the gun or not? They do not know themselves yet. They are debating in their own minds what will happen if they fire the gun. Will they destroy the Budget, or will the recoil be more injurious to themselves? Or, perhaps, will the gun burst altogether if they let it off? We know what their wishes and inclinations are; what we do not know at the present time is how much nerve they have got. But of this I am convinced—whatever the House of Lords may do, when the time comes for an appeal to the country, it will be an appeal on this Budget as a Free Trade Budget, and against the alternative of tariff reform.
Others among the prominent Liberals spoke with more temper of the threatened action of the Lords. Mr. Winston Churchill, for example, at Leicester, in September, said: "The rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords … would be a violent rupture of constitutional custom and usage extending over 300 years and recognized during all that time by the leaders of every party in the State. It would involve a sharp and sensible breach with the traditions of the past; and what does the House of Lords depend upon if not upon the traditions of the past? It would amount to an attempt at revolution not by the poor, but by the rich; not by the masses, but by the privileged few; not in the name of progress, but in that of reaction; not for the purpose of broadening the framework of the State, but greatly narrowing it. Such an attempt, gentlemen, whatever you may think of it, such an attempt would be historic in its character, and the result of the battle fought upon it, whoever wins, must inevitably be not of an annual, but of a permanent and final character. The result of such an election must mean an alteration of the veto of the House of Lords; if they win they will have asserted their right, not merely to reject legislation of the House of Commons, but to control the finances of the country, and if they lose we will smash to pieces their veto. I say to you that we do not seek the struggle, we have our work to do; but if it is to come, it could never come better than now."
Very soon after the Bill had been passed over to the House of Lords it was known that the Conservative leaders had consented to its death in that body. What may be called the death sentence was pronounced on the 22d of November, when Lord Lansdowne moved the following amendment to a motion for the second reading of the Bill: "That this House is not justified in giving its consent to this Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country."
{244}
Speaking to the motion with great seriousness he said: "I have been in this House more than 40 years, I owe everything to its indulgence, and I say from the depth of my heart that it is my desire to do nothing unworthy of your high reputation or your great place in the Constitution of this country. But I believe that the worst and most damaging thing that you could do would be that you should fail those who look to you as the guardians of their greatest constitutional right, the right to be consulted when fundamental political changes are demanded by the Government of the day; and, my lords, depend upon it that by rejecting this Bill you will, on the one hand, insist that that right shall be respected; you will not usurp the function of granting aid and supplies to the Crown; you will not pronounce a final verdict upon this Bill, bad though you may believe it to be; but you will say that it is a Bill to which you have no right to give your indispensable consent until you are assured by the people of the country that they desire it to pass into law."
In the week of debate which followed many speeches of notable force and impressiveness were made on both sides; but, unquestionably, the weightiest, in reasoning and feeling, were those which came from opponents of the Budget who would not join their associates in the step proposed, but warned them of dangers involved, to the existence of their House and to the future of parliamentary government, from constitutional changes which no man could forecalculate. On the latter point, Lord Rosebery begged his fellows of the peerage to "remember this: The menaces which were addressed to this House in old days were addressed by statesmen of a different school and under a different balance of constitutional forces in this country. The menaces addressed to you now come from a wholly different school of opinion, who wish for a single Chamber and who set no value on the controlling and revising forces of a second Chamber—a school of opinion which, if you like it and do not dread the word, is eminently revolutionary in essence, if not in fact. I ask you to bear in mind that fact when you weigh the consequences of the vote which you are to give to-morrow night. ‘Hang the consequences,’ said my noble friend Lord Camperdown last night. That is a noble sentiment and a noble utterance. It is a kind of Balaklava charge, and nothing more intrepid could be said by any of us if we had not to weigh the consequences, not to the individual, but to the State; and you should think once, you should think twice, and thrice, before you give a vote which may involve such enormous constitutional consequences."
Lord Balfour, while condemning the Bill, condemned still more the proposition that the House of Lords would do its duty in compelling a referendum to the people on the measure. A question in finance, he said, differs from all others in its unfitness for this treatment in Great Britain. "If you are to establish a system whereby this House or any other authority had the right of establishing a referendum as it is called—a reference to the people in matters of finance—you would spoil and destroy the control of the other House of Parliament over the Government, and you would make, I venture to say, perhaps the most momentous change in the Constitution, as it has grown up, which has been made in the whole history of that Constitution. Take it how you like, if you pass this resolution, if you make it a precedent—I care not with what safeguards you accompany it, whether you say it is only to be done on extreme occasions or by any other safeguard—you have made a change in the practice and in the Constitution which will prevent things going on as they have gone on up to the present time. My lords, if you win, the victory can at most be a temporary one. If you lose you have altered and prejudiced the position, the power, the prestige, the usefulness of this House, which I believe every one of you honours and desires to serve as heartily and as thoroughly as I do myself. If you win you are but beginning a conflict."
Lord James, one of the ablest of the Law Lords, and Lord Cromer, were other opponents of the Budget who earnestly counselled the Upper House not to interfere with the action of the Commons on this measure of finance. From the side of the few Liberals among the peers came other weighty words of admonition, spoken especially by the calm and thoughtful Lord Morley and by the Lord Chancellor, the presiding officer of their House. "No one," said the latter, "will be so simple as to believe that the only question which the country will consider will be the question whether this Bill ought to pass into law. Other and graver questions will be raised. We have been in office for four years. In 1906 our whole time in the House of Commons was taken up by passing an Education Bill. It came to this House. It was wrecked, and the whole labour of that Session was thrown away. The following year, 1907, was not a year of very great enterprise of a legislative character. In 1908 the whole time of the House of Commons was spent in passing the Licensing Bill, a measure the loss of which I regret more than I regret the loss of any other. It came up to this House. It was not alive when it came here. It had perished by the stiletto in Berkeley-square before it ever saw this House. Now, again in 1909, after a Session of unexampled labour, the House of Commons has presented to your lordships the proof of many, many months of arduous work in a domain entirely their own; and this House is going to destroy the Finance Bill of 1909 and to refuse supplies. It is, in my opinion, impossible that any Liberal Government should ever again bear the heavy burden of office unless it is secured against a repetition of treatment such as our measures have had to undergo for the last four years. If we fail in the coming general election, assuming that his Majesty is pleased to dissolve Parliament, it will only be the beginning of a conflict which can end only in one way. If we succeed, I hope we shall not flinch from that which will have to follow."
The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Spiritual Lords generally refrained from taking sides on what they regarded as a political question; but the Archbishop of York construed his duty differently, and added his voice to the remonstrance against Lord Landsdowne’s motion. Close upon midnight, November 30, the House divided on that motion and it was carried, rejecting the Finance Bill, by a vote of 350 to 75. So big a vote—such a swarming of titled legislators to record it—had not been known within the memory of living men.
{245}
Three days later, on the 3d of December, the Premier, Mr. Asquith, rose in the House of Commons and moved the adoption of the following declaration:
"That the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass into law the financial provision made by this House for the service of the year is a breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the rights of the Commons."
Speaking to this motion, he said, in part:
"When, a short time ago, the Finance Bill received its third reading, as it left this House it represented, I believe, in a greater degree than can be said of any measure of our time, the mature, the well-sifted, the deliberate work of an overwhelming majority of the representatives of the people upon a matter which, by the custom of generations and by the course of a practically unbroken authority, is the province of this House, and of this House alone. In the course of a week, or a little more than a week, the whole of this fabric has been thrown to the ground. For the first time in English history the grant of the whole of the Ways and Means for the Supply and the Services of the year, the grant made at the request of the Crown to the Crown by the Commons, has been intercepted and nullified by a body which admittedly has not the power to increase or to diminish one single tax or to propose any substitute or alternative for any one of the taxes. The House of Commons would, in the judgment of his Majesty’s Government, be unworthy of its past and of the traditions of which it is the custodian and the trustee if it allowed another day to pass without making it clear that it does not mean to brook the greatest indignity, and, I will add, the most arrogant usurpation (loud cheers), to which for more than two centuries it has been asked to submit."
After a short debate, the House divided on the motion, and it was adopted by 349 against 134.
On the afternoon of the same day the King prorogued Parliament to the 15th of January, 1910, this being preparatory to the dissolution and appeal to the people which the action of the Lords had made necessary.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (January-March).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May). A Majority Vote in the Commons for removing Disabilities from Roman Catholics.
A bill for the removal of remaining disabilities from Roman Catholics passed its second reading in the House of Commons on the 14th of May, by a vote of 133 to 123. Not being a Government measure, the crowded programme of business for the session gave no hope that it could be carried into law; but the vote was an encouragement.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May). Resolution of the House of Commons in favor of the Payment of Members and the public payment of election expenses.
The following resolution was introduced in the House of Commons on the 12th of May, 1909, by Mr. Higham, of York:
"That in the opinion of this House the non-payment of members and the liability of candidates for the returning officers’ expenses render it impossible for many constituencies to exercise a free choice in their selection of candidates and election of members of Parliament; and this House is of opinion that any measure of general electoral reform passed before the dissolution of this Parliament, and coming into force upon or after the dissolution, should be accompanied by arrangements for the payment of members elected to serve in Parliament and for the transfer to the Imperial Exchequer of the financial responsibility for the returning officers’ expenses incurred in the conduct of such elections."
Mr. Harcourt, for the Government, accepted the motion at once. He pointed out that the expenditure entailed, if members were paid £300 a year, would be £200,000 annually; but this was not a valid argument against the change. For his part, he could not see why politics should be the only profession "run by amateurs." He was, therefore, not frightened by the prospect of an Assembly of professional politicians. The time had gone by when the country could select its legislators solely from the leisured class; public servants deserved to be paid.
Most of the speakers in a debate of three hours favored the resolution, and it was then adopted, by 242 votes against 92. No legislation in accordance with it has yet been undertaken.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May). Reorganization of Passive Resistance to the Education Act of 1902.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: ENGLAND; A. D. 1909 (MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (May-October). Consumption of whiskey diminished by increase of tax.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: ENGLAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (June). The Imperial Press Conference.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July). Assassination of Sir W. Curzon-Wyllie by an Indian Anarchist.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1909 (JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July-August). Imperial Defence Conference. Its conclusions and agreements.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY AND NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (July-December). Decision against the right of Trade Unions to pay Salaries to Members of Parliament.
On the 23d of July, 1909, an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal was argued before five legal members of the House of Lords, on the question whether the payment of members of Parliament chosen to represent the interests of a trade union was a lawful application of the funds of such union. The complainant in the case had sued the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, of which he had been a member since 1892, to have it declared that one of the rules of the society, which provides, amongst other things, for Parliamentary representation and the enforced levy of contributions from the plaintiff and other members of the society, towards the payment of salaries, or maintenance allowance, to members of Parliament pledged to observe and fulfil the conditions imposed by the constitution of the Labour Party therein referred to, is _ultra vires_ and void, and that the society may be restrained from enforcing it. And in the alternative that it may be declared that a certain amendment or addition made to the rules in 1906 be declared to be illegal and void. The added rule, thus complained of, was as follows; "All candidates shall sign and accept the conditions of the Labour Party and be subject to their Whip."
{246}
The judgment of the Lords, rendered on the 21st of December, sustained the order from the court below, dismissing the appeal. Their decision rested mainly on considerations relating to the rule quoted above, and stated briefly by one of their bench, Lord James, as follows:
"The effect of this rule and others that exist is that a member of the trade union is compelled to contribute to the support of a member of Parliament, who is compelled ‘to answer the Whip of the Labour Party.’ I construe this condition as meaning that the member undertakes to forego his own judgment, and to vote in Parliament in accordance with the opinions of some person or persons acting on behalf of the Labour Party. And such vote would have to be given in respect of all matters, including those of a most general character—such as confidence in a Ministry or the policy of a Budget—matters unconnected directly at least with the interests of labour. Therefore I am of opinion that the application of money to the maintenance of a member whose action is so regulated is not within the powers of a trade union. If your Lordships decide on this branch of the case that the respondent is entitled to judgment, it is unnecessary that any opinion should be expressed upon the very broad constitutional question raised for the first time in the Court of Appeal affecting the general support of members."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (August). The Prevention of Crimes Act brought into force. The Borstal System.
See (in this Volume) CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (August). The Trade Boards Bill, to suppress "Sweating."
See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES REGULATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (September). Imperial Congress of Chambers of Commerce.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (September). Marconi Wireless Telegraph Stations taken over by the Post Office.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: ELECTRICAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (October). Organization of a Navy War Council.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (January-March). Dissolution of Parliament. An indecisive Election. No majority in the House of Commons for any single party. Precarious support for the Liberal Ministry. Uncertainties of the Situation.
As expected, Parliament was dissolved by royal proclamation early in January, and new elections commanded, the first of which took place on the 15th of that month and the last on the 14th of February. The result was generally disappointing, because wholly indecisive. The new House of Commons was found to be made up of 275 Liberals, 273 Unionists, 71 Nationalists (Irish), 11 Independent Nationalists, and 40 Labor members. Neither of the political parties arrayed on the main issues involved had won a majority. The people had rendered no recognizable verdict on the Budget, or on the tariff question, or on the abolition of the veto power claimed by the House of Lords.
Even with the support of the Labor members the Asquith Ministry was in a minority. The balance was held by the Irish members, and it was only by compromise with them that either Liberals or Unionists could do anything. Had the Ministry been able to choose its own course it might have preferred, perhaps, to push the Budget question to a settlement before attempting to determine the future of the House of Lords; but the leader of the Nationalists, Mr. Redmond, gave prompt notice that they would allow no such second rating of the Lords’ veto question to go into the programme of legislation. Probably, therefore, there were negotiations between Liberals and Nationalists before Mr. Asquith announced the intentions of the Government, which he did on the 28th of February,—Parliament having been formally opened on the 15th. Up to the 24th of March, he claimed all the time of the House of Commons for immediate measures which must be adopted before the close of the financial year, to provide immediately necessary means for maintaining the national credit. Then, "when the House reassembled after Easter, on March 29, the Government would present their proposals on the relations between the two Houses. They would be presented, in the first instance, in the form of resolutions affirming the necessity for excluding the House of Lords altogether from the domain of finance, and inviting the House to declare that, in the sphere of legislation, the power of the veto now possessed by the Lords should be so limited as to secure the predominance of the deliberate and considered will of the Commons within the lifetime of a single Parliament. Further, it would be made plain that these constitutional changes were without prejudice to and contemplated in a subsequent year the substitution in our Second Chamber, of a democratic for an hereditary basis. When these resolutions had been agreed to, they would be submitted to the House of Lords, so as to bring the main issue to a trial at the earliest possible moment."
This programme of procedure appears to have been hastened slightly; for despatches from London on the 21st of March announced that Mr. Asquith had brought forward his resolutions, and that their purport was as follows:
"The first resolution provides for complete control of money bills by the House of Commons, thus unmistakably disposing of the question that was precipitated by the Lords’ rejection of the budget; the second precludes the Lords from rejecting any bill that, has been passed by the Commons at three successive sessions, provided the entire time the bill has been before the House is not less than two years; and in the same case the bill becomes a law without the royal assent."
ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (May). Death of King Edward VII. Accession of King George V.
The political situation in England, which had become problematical, was probably changed with suddenness, on the night of May 6, by the death of King Edward, after a brief illness, consequent on chronic bronchial disorders. His son was proclaimed as King George V. Settlement of the pending political questions seems likely to be postponed for some time.
----------ENGLAND: End--------
ENJUMEN.
See (in this Volume) ANJUMAN.
ENVER BEY.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
EQUADOR.
See (in this Volume) ECUADOR.
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
See (in this Volume) INSURANCE, LIFE.
ERDMAN LAW.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907 (APRIL).
ERICHSEN, DR. MYLIUS: Tragically ended survey of Greenland coast.
See (in this Volume) POLAR EXPLORATION.
{247}
ERICSSON, JOHN: Unveiling of a monument to his memory at Stockholm, September 14, 1901.
See (in this Volume) SWEDEN: A. D. 1901.
ERIE CANAL: Popular vote for its enlargement to a capacity for boats of 1000 tons.
See (in this Volume) NEW YOKE STATE: A. D. 1903.
ERITREA: Its habitability by whites.
See (in this Volume) AFRICA.
ESHER ARMY COMMISSION, The.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
ESNEH BARRAGE, Opening of the.
See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
ESPERANTO.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: ESPERANTO.
ESTOURNELLES DE CONSTANT D', BARON.
See (in this Volume) Nobel Prizes.
ESTRADA, GENERAL JUAN: Revolutionary leader in Nicaragua.
See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1909.
ESTUPINIAN, DON BALTASER: Vice-President of Second International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
ETHER OF SPACE, NEW CONCEPTION OF THE.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: PHYSICAL.
ETHIOPIA.
See (in this Volume) ABYSSINIA.
EUCKEN, Rudolf.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
EUDISTES, THE CONGREGATION OF THE.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
EUGENICS.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: EUGENICS.
EULENBURG, PRINCE, The charges against.
See (in this Volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1908.
EUPHRATES VALLEY: Railway building.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.
EUPHRATES VALLEY: Irrigation projects.
See in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (OCTOBER).
----------EUROPE: Start--------
EUROPE: A. D. 1850-1907. Growth and changes in population. The shifting of numerical weight among nations and peoples.
Some statistical statements of surprising interest were set forth in an article published by Professor Sombart, of Berlin, in 1907. German statisticians have a reputation for accuracy, and we have no ground for questioning the figures submitted by this professor, which show that, notwithstanding the great flow of emigration from Europe within the last 60 years, its population has increased from about 250,000,000 to 400,000,000 since the middle of the nineteenth century. The main growth, however, has been in Russia, from which the emigration has been slight.
The exhibit of relative increase in the several countries and among the several races of Europe is more interesting and more important than the total growth. This comparison gives a heavy gain of weight to Russia since 1850, a considerable gain to Germany, slight gains to Austria-Hungary, Great Britain and Ireland (wholly on the British side of the United Kingdom), Belgium, and the Netherlands, with comparative losses in all the rest. The drop made by France in the scale of population is distressingly great. Out of every 1,000 inhabitants of Europe in 1850, 137 were in France; but out of the same number of Europeans in 1905 she counted but 94. Russia, in the same period, raised her share of the population of Europe from 215 per 1,000 to 285; Germany from 138 to 145; Austria-Hungary from 114 to 117; Great Britain and Ireland from 104 to 105; Belgium from sixteen to seventeen; the Netherlands from twelve to thirteen. On the other hand, Italy dropped from 95 to 80; Spain and Portugal from 71 to 58; Sweden, Norway, and Denmark from 29 to 25; the Balkan States from 60 to 53; Switzerland from nine to eight.
Carrying the comparisons of relative population back to the beginning of the last century, Professor Sombart finds that Germany, which gained ground in the last half of the period, had lost more in the first half than that gain made good. In 1801 the Germans furnished 160 to each 1,000 of the population of Europe, against their present count of 145. But Great Britain and Ireland gave but 93 to that 1,000 in 1801 against the 105 of the present time. The gains of Russia and the losses of France, Italy, and Spain were alike continuous from the first to the latest date.
As the result of these differences of advance in population, the Slavic peoples have been raised from the lowest to the highest weight in numbers; the Germanic have dropped just enough in the scale to take second place; while the Latinized folk of Southwestern Europe, or Latins as we call them, have fallen far from the share they had in the peopling of the continent 100 years ago. Of each 1,000 Europeans in 1801 the Slavs numbered 268, the Latins 355, the Germanics 375. In 1850 the count was 310 for the Slav, 321 for the Latin, 369 for the Germanic. The next 55 years brought the Slav to the front, with a great bound, and the figures in the column for 1905 are 375 Slav, 373 Germanic, 251 Latin.
These statistics hold a number of deep meanings; but they are especially eloquent in their showing of the deadly effects of the Napoleonic wars. For France there has been no recovery since those horrible years when the Corsican vampire sucked at her veins; and Spain and Italy are still sicklied from the same cause. But Germany’s languishing ended when the long peace of the last 36 years began. Her vitality had never been spent, even in the Thirty Years’ War and by the belligerency of Frederick, "called the Great," before Napoleon came to trample upon her, as that of France had been exhausted by her Bourbon and Corsican masters.
{248}
EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905. Rate of Increase of Population in other countries compared with Germany.
"During the last few decades, the population of Germany has been increasing with marvellous and unprecedented rapidity. From 1870 to the present time it has grown from 40,818,000 people to more than 60,000,000 people, and has therefore increased by 50 per cent. During the same period, our own [British] population has increased from 31,817,000 people to 43,000,000 people, or by but 32 per cent. No nation in the world excepting those oversea which yearly receive a huge number of immigrants from abroad multiplies more rapidly than does the German nation, as may be seen from the following figures:
"Average Yearly Increase of Population between the Last and the Previous Census.
Germany, 15,000 people per million of inhabitants. Russia, 13,600 people per million of inhabitants. Holland, 12,300 people per million of inhabitants. Switzerland, 10,400 people per million of inhabitants. Belgium, 10,100 people per million of inhabitants. Great Britain, 9,400 people per million of inhabitants. Austria-Hungary, 9,300 people per million of inhabitants. Spain, 8,800 people per million of inhabitants. Italy, 6,900 people per million of inhabitants. France, 1,700 people per million of inhabitants.
"From the foregoing table it appears that not only the population of Germany, but that of all the chiefly Germanic nations, increases very much faster than that of all other nations, Russia excepted. However, Russia cannot fairly be compared with Germany, partly because her population statistics are not reliable, partly because the growth of her population is to some extent due to conquest. …
"The proud boast of the Pan-Germans that it is the destiny of the German race to rule the world would appear to be correct, were it not for a singular phenomenon which, so far, has remained almost unobserved. Whilst the 60,000,000 Germans in Germany are increasing with astonishing celerity, the 30,000,000 Germans who live in Austria-Hungary and in other countries are so rapidly losing all German characteristics and even the German language, that it seems possible that, forty or fifty years hence, the number of Germans outside Germany proper will be almost nil. …
"The 90,000,000 Germans who live in Germany and in Greater Germany are distributed over the globe as follows:
Germany 60,000,000 Austria-Hungary 11,550,000 Switzerland 2,320,000 Russia 2,000,000 Various European countries 1,130,000 ---------- Total in Europe 77,000,000
United States and Canada 11,500,000
Central and South America 600,000
Asia, Africa, Australia 400,000
Grand total 89,500,000"
_O. Eltzbacher, Germany and Greater Germany (Contemporary Review, August, 1905)._
Later figures, relative to France, on this subject, were given by the Paris correspondent of the New York Evening Post, writing June 12th, 1909, when he said: "From 1901 to 1905 the birthrate was high enough to increase the population of France 18 for every 10,000 yearly. During the same period the relative increase per 10,000 was 106 in Italy, 113 in Austria, 121 in England, 149 in Germany, and 155 in Holland. … Coming back to single years, the birth rate of 1906 only increased the French population 7 per 10,000; that is, among every 10,000 inhabitants there were as many births of living children as there were deaths taken altogether, plus seven births more. In 1907 there were five fewer births than deaths per 10,000 inhabitants. And now here comes 1908 jumping back to an excess of twelve births over deaths per 10,000. Such sudden fluctuations can be seized on by no theory; 1907 had its deficit because it had 19,892 more deaths than the average; 1908 recovers lost ground because it had 48,266 fewer deaths than 1907, or 28,374 fewer than the average of the preceding period of five years. Along with this slow but sure decrease in the absolute birth rate of France goes the happier decrease of deaths, owing to greater well-being in general and better popular hygiene in particular.
"Statistics have something better than this to show. The steady increase in marriages, which I noted last year, has gone on. For 1908 it is the heaviest since 1873; the total number was 315,928—which is 1,172 more than in 1907 and 9441 more than in 1906. Divorces, for all France, were 10,573 in 1906 and 11,515 in 1908.
"Why do Frenchmen have few children? Because they deliberately will not to have them. That is the answer which every intelligent observer who passes his life among Frenchmen—as one of themselves, not as an outsider—will give spontaneously; and it is the answer to which all statistics and all verified social facts lead up."
EUROPE: A. D. 1878-1909. Thirty-one Years of Peace, broken only by Thirty-one Days of War.
In the spring of 1897 there were thirty-one days of war between Turkey and Greece. With that exception there have been no hostilities on the European continent since Russia fought the Turks in 1877-1878, a period of thirty-one years. In the preceding thirty years there had been nearly a score of serious insurrections and wars: the widespread revolutionary conflicts of 1848-1849, in France, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Germany, and Denmark; the coup d’etat of 1851 in France; the Crimean War of 1854-1856; the war of France and Sardinia with Austria in 1859; Garibaldi’s liberation of Sicily and Naples in 1861, and his attempt on Rome the next year; the Greek revolution of 1862; Polish revolts of 1861 and 1863; the Schleswig-Holstein war of 1864; the Austro-Prussian "Seven Weeks War" and the Austro-Italian war, in 1866; Garibaldi’s renewed attack on the Papal government at Rome in 1867; revolution in Spain in 1868; the Franco-German War and the insurrection of the Communists at Paris in 1870-1871; the revolts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875 and of Bulgaria in 1876.
There is no mistaking the hopeful significance of so striking a contrast as this; and if we look back through two more similar periods, each of which represents the average term reckoned for a generation, we find the key to a better understanding of its hopefulness. Behind the turbulent thirty years from 1847 to 1877 are thirty years during most of which Europe lay bleeding, panting, exhausted by thirty other years of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars; exhausted physically but stirred deeply in brain and heart, and gathering strength for the efforts toward freer and better institutions of government and more homogeneous organizations of nationality which most of the conflicts between 1847 and 1877 represent.
{249}
It is because those conflicts resulted in far better political conditions, and in much of satisfaction to racial affinities and national aspirations long resisted, that the people of Europe, in these last thirty years, have enjoyed the longest exemption from war on their own soil that their history records.
EUROPE: A. D. 1902-1907. Renewal and maintenance of the Triple Alliance. Its value to Italy.
The Triple Alliance or Dreibund of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, formed in 1882 and renewed in 1887 and 1891, was renewed for the third time in 1902, a year before the end of its term, by the Zanardelli Government. "The term of this renewal was for six or 12 years; that is to say, if the treaty were not denounced in 1907, five years after its actual renewal, it should be considered as holding good for the full term of 12 years. The treaty was not denounced by the Giolitti Ministry, with Signor Tittoni Minister of Foreign Affairs, and therefore is in force until 1914, 12 years after its third renewal by Prinetti. Except in the case of a very marked alteration in the friendly relations between the three contracting Powers there can be no question of its renewal or non-renewal at this date. That case has not arrived; the cordial relations between Italy and her allies, in spite of conjectured though unacknowledged differences of opinion, remain ostensibly unaltered, and may still be considered as correctly described in the words used in their speeches in Vienna by the Emperor of Austria and the German Emperor, and in the telegrams which they afterwards exchanged with the King of Italy.
"Some Italian politicians, however, seem disposed to question the utility of an alliance which does not relieve Italy from the necessity of spending more money on her national defence. What, they ask, is the use of the alliance if we have to make these heavy sacrifices in order to increase our army and navy and put our frontier fortifications in order? The answer is more simple than agreeable. It is precisely the existence of the Triple Alliance that has permitted Italy to leave her Austrian frontier absolutely open to invasion, and to allow both her army and navy to fall below the standard which she had proposed to keep up. The alliance has secured her immunity for her neglect. But she has naturally paid for that combined neglect and immunity by accepting a subordinate role by the side of her allies."
_Rome Correspondence, London Times, May 15, 1909._
EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (April). The Entente Cordiale of England and France.
In his interesting work on "France and the Alliances," founded on a course of lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1908, M. André Tardieu reviews the long antagonism between England and France, which ran through their history, from early in the Fourteenth Century to the last year but one of the Nineteenth, when, in March, 1899, France, by treaty with the British Government, gave up her strong desire to extend her North African dominion eastward to the Nile. Then he asks: "How came it that within five years a sincere understanding was established between the two hereditary enemies?" He answers the question by saying: "Neither in England nor in France is the principle of the understanding to be sought. Rather was it the fear of Germany which determined England—not only her King and Government, but the whole of her people—to draw near to France." This, without doubt, is substantially the true explanation of the friendly agreements, forming what is known as the Entente Cordiale between England and France, which were signed on the 8th of April, 1904. They involved nothing in the nature of a defensive alliance against Germany, and they had been prepared for by a rapid growth of natural and real good feeling between English and French folk; but it is certain that they received their immediate prompting from the common recognition, in England and France, that Germany had become a rival in political and economic ambitions to both of them, more formidable than either could be to the other. This gave them a common reason for obliterating all their old differences and causes of difference, and exhibiting themselves to the world as friends.
M. Tardieu credits the English King with the initiation of this most important rapprochement. "He it was," says the French writer, "who both conceived and facilitated it, while still many believed that the moment was premature. Edward VII. has been both praised and attacked without stint. Perhaps he deserves neither the ‘excess of honor nor yet the excess of abuse.’ Among present sovereigns, he has one superiority, that of having gained experience in life before reigning. … He is not afraid of taking the initiative; and so far his initiative has been a success. The boldest example of it was his visit to Paris in 1903. Putting aside all objections, and being convinced of his success, he arrived in France amidst an atmosphere of uncertainty. When the first platoons of cuirassiers rode down the Champs Elysées, embarrassment and anxiety weighed on the public. The Nationalists had declared their intention of hissing. What would be the result of a hostile manifestation? The King, as far as he was concerned, did not believe in the danger, and he was right. The Parisians accorded him, not an enthusiastic, but, from the first, a respectful, and soon a genial, reception. The road was clear. Two months later, Mr. Loubet paid King Edward a return visit. And, on welcoming his colleague, Mr. Delcassé, to London, Lord Lansdowne said to him: ‘Now we are going to have some conversation.’ As a matter of fact, there was conversation both in Paris and in London. … On the 8th of April, 1904, the agreement was signed, and its immediate publication produced a deep impression in Europe."
Strictly speaking, there were three Agreements, or two Declarations and one formal Convention, signed on the 8th of April, 1904, constituting, together, the Anglo-French _Entente_. The first, a "Declaration respecting Egypt and Morocco," ran as follows:
"Article I. His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they have no intention of altering the political status of Egypt. The Government of the French Republic, for their part, declare that they will not obstruct the action of Great Britain in that country by asking that a limit of time be fixed for the British occupation or in any other manner, and that they give their assent to the draft Khedivial Decree annexed to the present Arrangement, containing the guarantees considered necessary for the protection of the interests of the Egyptian bondholders, on the condition that, after its promulgation, it cannot be modified in any way without the consent of the Powers Signatory of the Convention of London of 1885. It is agreed that the post of Director-General of Antiquities in Egypt shall continue, as in the past, to be entrusted to a French _savant_. The French schools in Egypt shall continue to enjoy the same liberty as in the past.
{250}
"Article II. The Government of the French Republic declare that they have no intention of altering the political status of Morocco. His Britannic Majesty’s Government, for their part, recognize that it appertains to France, more particularly as a Power whose dominions are conterminous for a great distance with those of Morocco, to preserve order in that country, and to provide assistance for the purpose of all administrative, economic, financial, and military reforms which it may require. They declare that they will not obstruct the action taken by France for this purpose, provided that such action shall leave intact the rights which Great Britain, in virtue of Treaties, Conventions, and usage, enjoys in Morocco, including the right of coasting trade between the ports of Morocco, enjoyed by British vessels since 1901.
"Article III. His Britannic Majesty’s Government, for their part, will respect the rights which France, in virtue of Treaties, Conventions, and usage, enjoys in Egypt, including the right of coasting trade between Egyptian ports accorded to French vessels.
"Article IV. The two Governments, being equally attached to the principle of commercial liberty both in Egypt and Morocco, declare that they will not, in those countries, countenance any inequality either in the imposition of customs duties or other taxes, or of railway transport charges. The trade of both nations with Morocco and with Egypt shall enjoy the same treatment in transit through the French and British possessions in Africa. An Agreement between the two Governments shall settle the conditions of such transit and shall determine the points of entry. This mutual engagement shall be binding for a period of thirty years. Unless this stipulation is expressly denounced at least one year in advance, the period shall be extended for five years at a time. Nevertheless, the Government of the French Republic reserve to themselves in Morocco, and His Britannic Majesty’s Government reserve to themselves in Egypt, the right to see that the concessions for roads, railways, ports, &c., are only granted on such conditions as will maintain intact the authority of the State over these great undertakings of public interest.
"Article V. His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they will use their influence in order that the French officials now in the Egyptian service may not be placed under conditions less advantageous than those applying to the British officials in the same service. The Government of the French Republic, for their part, would make no objection to the application of analogous conditions to British officials now in the Moorish service.
"Article VI. In order to insure the free passage of the Suez Canal, His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they adhere to the stipulations of the Treaty of the 29th October, 1888, and that they agree to their being put in force. The free passage of the Canal being thus guaranteed, the execution of the last sentence of paragraph 1 as well as of paragraph 2 of Article VIII of that Treaty will remain in abeyance.
"Article VII. In order to secure the free passage of the Straits of Gibraltar, the two Governments agree not to permit the erection of any fortifications or strategic works on that portion of the coast of Morocco comprised between, but not including, Melilla and the heights which command the right bank of the River Sebou. This condition does not, however, apply to the places at present in the occupation of Spain on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean.
"Article VIII. The two Governments, inspired by their feeling of sincere friendship for Spain, take into special consideration the interests which that country derives from her geographical position and from her territorial possessions on the Moorish coast of the Mediterranean. In regard to these interests the French Government will come to an understanding with the Spanish Government. The agreement which may be come to on the subject between France and Spain shall be communicated to His Britannic Majesty’s Government.
"Article IX. The two Governments agree to afford to one another their diplomatic support, in order to obtain the execution of the clauses of the present Declaration regarding Egypt and Morocco."
The more formally designated Convention relates to questions concerning the Newfoundland fisheries and certain boundaries between French and English possessions in Africa. The articles respecting Newfoundland and the fisheries are as follows:
"Article I. France renounces the privileges established to her advantage by Article XIII of the Treaty of Utrecht, and confirmed or modified by subsequent provisions.
"Article II. France retains for her citizens, on a footing of equality with British subjects, the right of fishing in the territorial waters on that portion of the coast of Newfoundland comprised between Cape St. John and Cape Ray, passing by the north; this right shall be exercised during the usual fishing season closing for all persons on the 20th October of each year. The French may therefore fish there for every kind of fish, including bait and also shell fish. They may enter any port or harbour on the said coast and may there obtain supplies or bait and shelter on the same conditions as the inhabitants of Newfoundland, but they will remain subject to the local Regulations in force; they may also fish at the mouths of the rivers, but without going beyond a straight line drawn between the two extremities of the banks, where the river enters the sea. They shall not make use of stake-nets or fixed engines without permission of the local authorities. On the above-mentioned portion of the coast, British subjects and French citizens shall be subject alike to the laws and Regulations now in force, or which may hereafter be passed for the establishment of a close time in regard to any particular kind of fish, or for the improvement of the fisheries. Notice of any fresh laws or Regulations shall be given to the Government of the French Republic three months before they come into operation. The policing of the fishing on the above-mentioned portion of the coast, and for prevention of illicit liquor traffic and smuggling of spirits, shall form the subject of Regulations drawn up in agreement by the two Governments.
{251}
"Article III. A pecuniary indemnity shall be awarded by His Britannic Majesty’s Government to the French citizens engaged in fishing or the preparation of fish on the ‘Treaty Shore,’ who are obliged, either to abandon the establishments they possess there, or to give up their occupation, in consequence of the modification introduced by the present Convention into the existing state of affairs. This indemnity cannot be claimed by the parties interested unless they have been engaged in their business prior to the closing of the fishing season of 1903. Claims for indemnity shall be submitted to an Arbitral Tribunal, composed of an officer of each nation, and, in the event of disagreement, of an Umpire appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down by Article XXXII of The Hague Convention. The details regulating the constitution of the Tribunal, and the conditions of the inquiries to be instituted for the purpose of substantiating the claims, shall form the subject of a special Agreement between the two Governments.
"Article IV. His Britannic Majesty’s Government, recognizing that, in addition to the indemnity referred to in the preceding Article, some territorial compensation is due to France in return for the surrender of her privilege in that part of the Island of Newfoundland referred to in Article II, agree with the Government of the French Republic to the provisions embodied in the following Articles:"
The provisions here referred to, contained in the subsequent articles, modify the former frontier between Senegambia and the English colony of the Gambia, "so as to give to France Yarbutenda and the lands and landing places belonging to that locality"; cede to France "the group known as the Isles de Los, and situated opposite Konakry"; and substitute a new boundary, to the east of the Niger, for that which was fixed between the French and British possessions by the Convention of 1898.
The Declaration which concludes the series of Agreements has to do with matters in Siam, Madagascar, and New Hebrides. As to Siam, the two Governments "declare by mutual agreement that the influence of Great Britain shall be recognized by France in the territories situated to the west of the basin of the River Menam, and that the influence of France shall be recognized by Great Britain in the territories situated to the east of the same region, all the Siamese possessions on the east and southeast of the zone above described and the adjacent islands coming thus henceforth under French influence, and, on the other hand, all Siamese possessions on the west of this zone and of the Gulf of Siam, including the Malay Peninsula and the adjacent islands, coming under English influence. The two Contracting Parties, disclaiming all idea of annexing any Siamese territory, and determined to abstain from any act which might contravene the provisions of existing Treaties, agree that, with this reservation, and so far as either of them is concerned, the two Governments shall each have respectively liberty of action in their spheres of influence as above defined."
The further agreements were, on the part of the British Government, to withdraw a protest it had raised against the customs tariff established in Madagascar, and, on the part of the two Governments, "to draw up in concert an arrangement which, without involving any modification of the political status quo, shall put an end to the difficulties arising from the absence of jurisdiction over the natives of the New Hebrides."
In the British Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 1952, April, 1904) which gave official publication to these Agreements, they are accompanied by an explanatory despatch from the Marquess of Lansdowne, British Foreign Secretary, to Sir E. Monson, Ambassador at Paris, which affirms distinctly that "if any European Power is to have a predominant influence in Morocco, that Power is France." The language of the despatch on this subject is as follows:
"The condition of that country [Morocco] has for a long time been unsatisfactory and fraught with danger. The authority of the Sultan over a large portion of his dominions is that of a titular Chief rather than of a Ruler. Life and property are unsafe, the natural resources of the country are undeveloped, and trade, though increasing, is hampered by the political situation. In these respects the contrast between Morocco and Egypt is marked. In spite of well-meant efforts to assist the Sultan, but little progress has been effected, and at this moment the prospect is probably as little hopeful as it ever has been. Without the intervention of a strong and civilized Power there appears to be no probability of a real improvement in the condition of the country.
"It seems not unnatural that, in these circumstances, France should regard it as falling to her lot to assume the task of attempting the regeneration of the country. Her Algerian possessions adjoin those of the Sultan throughout the length of a frontier of several hundred miles. She has been compelled from time to time to undertake military operations of considerable difficulty, and at much cost, in order to put an end to the disturbances which continually arise amongst tribes adjoining the Algerian frontier—tribes which, although nominally the subjects of the Sultan, are, in fact, almost entirely beyond his control. The trade of France with Morocco is again—if that across the Algerian frontier be included—of considerable importance, and compares not unfavourably with our own. In these circumstances, France, although in no wise desiring to annex the Sultan’s dominions or to subvert his authority, seeks to extend her influence in Morocco, and is ready to submit to sacrifices and to incur responsibilities with the object of putting an end to the condition of anarchy which prevails upon the borders of Algeria. His Majesty’s Government are not prepared to assume such responsibilities, or to make such sacrifices, and they have therefore readily admitted that if any European Power is to have a predominant influence in Morocco, that Power is France."
{252}
Of the reciprocal and equally important recognition by France of the paramount influence of Great Britain in Egypt, Lord Lansdowne wrote:
"From the point of view of Great Britain the most important part of the Agreement which has been concluded in respect of Egypt is the recognition by the French Government of the predominant position of Great Britain in that country. They fully admit that the fulfilment of the task upon which we entered in 1883 must not be impeded by any suggestion on their part that our interest in Egypt is of a temporary character, and they undertake that, so far as they are concerned, we shall not be impeded in the performance of that task. This undertaking will enable us to pursue our work in Egypt without, so far as France is concerned, arousing international susceptibilities. It is true that the other Great Powers of Europe also enjoy, in virtue of existing arrangements, a privileged position in Egypt; but the interests of France—historical, political, and financial—so far outweigh those of the other Powers, with the exception of Great Britain, that so long as we work in harmony with France, there seems no reason to anticipate difficulty at the hands of the other powers."
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909. General Consequences in Europe of the Russo-Japanese War and the Weakening of Russia in Prestige and Actual Power.
"Europe is apparently on the eve of such a new combination of the Great Powers as was caused by the Franco-German War of 1870, and just as after that fateful event Berlin became the centre of the continental political system, so Paris bids fair to play this part in the near future. For France has never been so powerful a factor in politics since the fall of the Empire as to-day. Everyone recognises that her alliance with Russia was the first step from the isolation which followed her military reverses towards her reinstatement in the political hierarchy, and some of the most popular and statesmanlike politicians of the Republic hold that the dissolution of that partnership will be the second. For the good which it achieved, they allege, was largely accidental, while the cost it entailed was proportionately great. …
"The chief aim of the French statesman who struck up an alliance with the Government of Alexander III. was to neutralise Teutonic aggressiveness, and if possible to recover the lost provinces as well. The latter part of this programme has turned out to be a will-o’-the-wisp, while the first item can now be realised independently of the Russian alliance. Moreover, France, far from being isolated to-day, counts among her friends and natural allies not only the Latin peoples but the smaller States of the Continent, to say nothing of Great Britain. …
"The motives which induced Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy to enter into partnership have lost their force; the Triple Alliance has ceased to exist in aught but the name. Italy was the first of the three States to break away. And her adherence to the league was so obviously opposed to the sentiments of her people and the real interests of the nation, that only the strongest conceivable motive could keep her in the uncongenial society of her former oppressor. That motive had been supplied by Bismarck, who persuaded Crispi that clerical France was at the beck and call of the Vatican, and only awaited a prosperous moment to disunite Italy and restore Rome to the Pope. But to-day Germany herself has become the most trusty and perhaps the most helpful friend of the Holy See, while France has struck a vigorous blow on the line of cleavage between the political and ecclesiastical institutions which constitute the Catholic Church. The ruling body in Parliamentary Germany is the Ultramontane centre, and if any State in Europe could be conceived to be capable of breaking a lance for the temporal power of his Holiness, it would certainly be one of the two Teutonic Empires of Central Europe."
_E. J. Dillon, Foreign Affairs (Contemporary Review, August, 1904)._
The following is from a special correspondent of the New York _Evening Post_, who wrote from St. Petersburg on the 5th of March, 1909:
"The international position of Russia has weakened greatly during the last five years. Before the Japanese war and the revolution her strength was enormous, and a Japanese officer who visited St. Petersburg in 1903 wrote in a Japanese paper that, judging by the attention which was paid to the Czar by every court in Europe and by the respect, almost awe even, with which he was regarded, that monarch might almost be styled the king of kings. The war and the revolution made short work, however, of this respect and awe. The Emperor William first took advantage of Russia’s weakness by springing the Morocco surprise on Europe; then Baron von Aerenthal annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which he would never, of course, have dared to do six years ago; while recently in the Duma Mr. Iswolsky frankly confessed that Russia can do absolutely nothing; that the war and the revolution have bled her white, and that no assistance or hope of assistance can be given to the Serbs and the Montenegrins."
EUROPE: A. D. 1905. Joint action of Powers in forcing Financial Reforms in Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906. Sudden hostility of Germany to the Anglo-French Agreement concerning Morocco. The Kaiser’s speech at Tangier. Threatening pressure on France. Demand for International Conference. Results at Algeciras.
What use the French Government wished to make of the free exercise of influence in Morocco which Great Britain consented to, in the agreements of April 8, 1904, is stated by M. Tardieu in his "France and the Alliances," with more than probable truth, as follows:
"There was no design of conquest, or of protectorate, or of monopoly. Conquest would have cost too dear. A protectorate would have served no purpose in face of the exclusiveness of the tribes. Monopolization would have been contrary to international treaties. To create police forces with Moroccan natives and Algerian instructors in all the principal towns; to restore finances by means of a more honest collection of taxes, a genuine checking of expenses, and the repression of smuggling; to increase the carrying trade by public works wisely planned and the construction of ports, bridges and roads—all this by contract law; to multiply hospitals, schools, educational and charitable institutions,—such was the tenor of the programme. … As Mr. Delcassé wrote: ‘Far from diminishing the Sultan’s authority, we were peculiarly anxious to enhance his prestige.’"
{253}
For almost a year after the signing of the Anglo-French agreements of April, 1904, no objection was raised in Europe to the undertaking by France of such regenerative work in Morocco as they contemplated. Italy had assented to it before England did. Spain did the same a few months later. These were the Powers most concerned. The German Ambassador to France had been informed of the tenor of the agreement with England a fortnight before it was signed, and no criticism came from his Government. After the text of it had been published, Chancellor von Bülow said in the Reichstag: "We know of nothing that should lead us to think that this agreement is directed against any Power whatsoever. … From the point of view of German interests, we have no objection to make against it." During the eleven months that followed this utterance nothing appears to have been done by France in Morocco that changed the situation; but something changed the official attitude of Germany towards what it had found acceptable before, and changed it very suddenly. On the 31st of March, 1905, the German Emperor, on a yachting cruise to the Mediterranean, disembarked at Tangier, and found occasion to address these remarks to a representative of the Sultan:
"To-day, I pay my visit to the Sultan in his character of independent sovereign. I hope that, under the Sultan’s sovereignty, a free Morocco will remain open to the pacific competition of all nations without monopoly and without annexation, on a footing of absolute equality. My visit to Tangier is intended to make known the fact that I am resolved to do all that is in my power properly to safeguard the interests of Germany, since I consider the Sultan as being an absolutely free sovereign. It is with him that I mean to come to an understanding respecting the best way of safeguarding such interests. As regards the reforms which the Sultan is intending to make, it seems to me that any action in this direction should be taken with great precaution, respect being had for the religious sentiments of the population in order that there may be no disturbance of public tranquillity."
All Europe read an emphasized threat in these words, and felt instantly that they meant hostile intentions towards France. That they came so quickly after the crushing defeat of Russia at Mukden; that Russia, ally of France in European politics, would need no longer to be counted, for some indefinite future time, as a military Power; that the Dual Alliance, which had been the prop of France in the recovery of her standing among the Powers, was thus suddenly a broken reed, and that circumstances were propitious, therefore, for humiliating her again,—here were facts for a bit of reasoning which suggested itself quickly to a multitude of minds.
Twelve days after the speech of William II. at Tangier Chancellor Bülow addressed a circular to the Ambassadors of Germany at various capitals, directing them to demand an International Conference for the settlement of matters concerning Morocco. A little later the Moorish Sultan, Abd el Aziz, endorsed the demand, in the following missive, addressed to the several legations of foreign governments at Tangier:
"We have been ordered by our master the Sultan (God strengthen him) to request all the great powers to hold a conference at Tangier, composed by its honorable representatives and those appointed by the Maghzen [the royal council or Cabinet] to discuss the manner for suitable reforms which His Shcreefian Majesty has determined to introduce into his Empire, and the expenses to carry out the same. We therefore beg to inform your excellency of this, so that you may notify your government and request them to permit your excellency to attend said conference for the above-mentioned purpose and let us know of its answer, and remain in peace and with joy. Written at the Holy Court at Fez on the 25th day of Rabe 1st, 1905; corresponding to May 29, 1905. MOHAMMED BEN ARBY TORRES."
Meantime, Germany was bringing pressure at Paris to force the resignation or removal of M. Delcassé, the Foreign Minister, whose policy was now said to be "A threat to Germany," and the French Government, unprepared for war, submitted to concessions which involved that result. It entered on preliminary pourparlers concerning the demand for an international conference, and allowed Minister Delcassé to resign.
A fair-minded German’s view of the proceedings of the German Government in this matter was expressed by Mr. W. C. Dreher in his next annual review of "The Year in Germany" for _The Atlantic Monthly_. Frankly acknowledging that the Morocco controversy had "left with most other nations a distinctly disagreeable impression of the disturbing tendencies of German policy," and that the Kaiser’s famous speech at Tangier had "astonished the German people not less than other nations," he remarks: "For the Germans had learned to acquiesce in the Anglo-French settlement, under which France was to have a free hand for its scheme of _pénétration pacifique_ in Morocco. The utterances of the Imperial Chancellor in the Reichstag clearly indicated that the Government accepted with good grace the general terms of that settlement. The people, too, had been schooled by the inspired press in the theory that Germany’s commercial interests in Morocco were so insignificant as not to warrant the inauguration of a large and energetic action to assert them; and this view had been generally accepted by them, barring the noisy little faction of Pan Germans.
"The chief fault of Germany’s Morocco policy was, accordingly, that it was sprung upon the German people themselves without warning, without any preparation of their minds for it; hence they imperfectly comprehended it and never had any great interest in it. They did not feel that it was a matter intimately affecting the nation’s interests; and while the German Ambassador at Paris was asserting Germany’s solidarity with Morocco, the press at home was diligently occupied in convincing the outside world that Germany would never go to war on account of that remote and insignificant state.
"Despite the abruptness and lack of skill in launching its new policy, however, the government’s position was logical and, within certain limits, reasonable. France and England had assumed to decide the fate of Morocco between themselves, whereas the Madrid Treaty of 1880, to which Germany was signatory, had explicitly given an international character to the Moroccan question. This was clearly an affront to Germany’s dignity and an attempt to isolate her, which ought to have been objected to at once."
_W. C. Dreher, The Year in Germany (Atlantic Monthly, November, 1906)_.
{254}
On the 28th of September M. Rouvier, the French Premier, and Prince de Radolin, the German Ambassador at Paris, arrived at an agreement concerning the matters to be settled at the demanded Conference, and it was announced to other governments in the following Memorandum;
The two Governments have agreed to submit to the Sultan the draft of the following programme elaborated in conformity to principles adopted by exchange of notes on July 8:
"_First_. 1. Organization, by way of international agreement, of the police outside the border region.
"2. Regulations organizing the surveillance and suppression of the smuggling of arms. In the border region the enforcement of these regulations will exclusively concern France and Morocco.
"_Second_. Financial reform.
"Financial support given to the Maghzen through the establishment of a state bank with the privilege of issue, taking charge of treasury operations and acting as a medium for the coinage of money, the profits of which would belong to the Maghzen.
"The said state bank would undertake to bring about a sounder monetary condition.
"The credits opened to the Maghzen would be applied to the equipment and salaries of the public forces and to urgent public works, especially the improvement of the harbors and their facilities.
"_Third_. Study of better proceeds from imposts and of new sources of revenue.
"_Fourth_. Undertaking on the part of the Maghzen that no public service will be disposed of for the benefit of private interests.
"Principle of letting contracts for public works to the lowest bidder, without preference for any nationality."
In due time the further details were arranged, and representatives of thirteen governments, namely, of Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, Sweden, and the United States, were assembled in Conference on the 15th of January, 1906, not at Tangier, but at the Spanish city of Algeciras, on the coast of the Straits of Gibraltar. The United States were represented by the American Ambassador to the French Republic, Henry White, and by the American Minister to Morocco, S. R. Gummeré. The instructions addressed to them from Washington by the Secretary of State, Mr. Root, were partly in these words:
"The United States is a participant in the discussions of the conference solely by reason of being a treaty power, having conventional engagements with Morocco dating back to 1836, by which this country not only enjoys special privileges, but is entitled to the most-favored-nation treatment for the time being. This government also shares in the right of protection of certain native Moors as defined in the multipartite convention of July 3, 1880. Our interest and right comprise and are limited to an equal share in whatever privileges of residence, trade, and protection are enjoyed by, or may be hereafter conceded by, the Shereefian Government to aliens and their local agencies, and it follows that we have a like concern in the enlargement of those privileges in all appropriate ways. With the special political problems of influence and association affecting the relations of the Moroccan Empire, as a Mediterranean state, to the powers having interests in that great sea and whose concern lies naturally in the conservation and extension of its commerce for the common benefit of all, the United States have little to do beyond expression of its wish that equality and stability be secured. …
"It is expected that your attitude in the proceedings of the conference will display the impartial benevolence which the United States feels toward Morocco and the cordial and unbiased friendship we have for all the treaty powers. Fair play is what the United States asks—for Morocco and for all the interested nations—and it confidently expects that outcome. The complete dissociation of the United States from all motives or influences which might tend to thwart a perfect agreement of the powers should, in case of need, lend weight to your impartial counsels in endeavoring to compose any dissidence of aims which may possibly develop in the course of the conference."
Algeciras, the chosen seat of the Conference, had been three times a landing place of the Moors in their invasions of Spain. "The modern town," says one who wrote an account of the Conference, "dating only from 1760, has but one attraction, a magnificent English hotel, built by the owners of the picturesque railway which connects it with the rest of Europe, and of the corresponding steamer service across the bay to Gibraltar, placing it in touch with all the world. But this attraction sufficed, and the Reina Cristina Hotel was engaged for the delegates, while the town-hall was cleared and refitted for their deliberations. …
"The meetings were held at irregular intervals, about three times a week, being summoned whenever the President was advised that sufficient instructions had been received, or that the drafting committee had some document to present for consideration. Formal sessions were held from ten to twelve in the morning, the Conference meeting in committee from three to five in the afternoon, the drafting and translating committees assembling when and where convenient to their members."
_Budgett Meakin, The Algeciras Conference (Fortnightly Review, May, 1906)._
The General Act of the Conference, finished and signed on the 7th of April, 1906, is in 123 Articles, divided into 6 Chapters, as follows:
I. A Declaration relative to the Organization of the Police;
II. Regulations concerning the detection and suppression of the Illicit Trade in Arms;
III. An Act of Concession for a Moorish State Bank;
IV. A Declaration concerning an Improved Yield of the Taxes, and the creation of New Sources of Revenue;
V. Regulations respecting the Customs of the Empire and the suppression of Fraud and Smuggling;
VI. A Declaration relative to the Public Services and Public Works.
The first chapter provides for the organization of a police force, not less than 2000 nor more than 2500 in number, recruited from among Moorish Mussulmans and commanded by Kaids, but having Spanish and French officers and non-commissioned officers for instructors, nominated to the Sultan by their respective Governments, and their services given for five years. {255} This police force, moreover, is subject to general inspection by a superior officer of the Swiss army. The regulations of the second chapter are minute and precise for their stated purpose. The Morocco State Bank, provided for in the third, is made subject to the law of France, and is to "discharge the duties of disbursing Treasurer of the Empire" and "financial agent of the Government." The Directors of the Bank are chosen, of course, by the shareholders; but one article stipulates that "the Shereefian Government shall exercise its high control over the Bank through a Moorish High Commissioner, whom it shall appoint after previous agreement with the board of directors," while another requires that "each of the following institutions, viz., the German Imperial Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Spain and the Bank of France, shall, with the approval of its Government, appoint a Censor to the State Bank of Morocco." The prescriptions in the fourth and fifth chapters of the act are not of general significance or interest. In the sixth, relating to "public services and public works," it is set forth that, "should the Shereefian Government consider it necessary to have recourse to foreign capital or to foreign industries for the working of public services or for the execution of public works, roads, railways, ports, telegraphs, or other, the Signatory Powers reserve to themselves the right to see that the control of the State over such large undertakings of public interest remain intact." On the signing of the Act Mr. Henry White, the chief delegate from the United States to the Conference, made the following Declaration on behalf of his Government:
"The Government of the United States of America, having no political interests in Morocco, and having taken part in the present Conference with no other desires or intentions than to assist in assuring to all the nations in Morocco the most complete equality in matters of commerce, treatment, and privileges, and in facilitating the introduction into that Empire of reforms which should bring about a general state of well-being founded on the perfect cordiality of her foreign relations, and on a stable internal administration, declares: that in subscribing to the Regulations and Declarations of the Conference by the act of signing the General Act, subject to ratification according to constitutional procedure, and the Additional Protocol, and in consenting to their application to American citizens and interests in Morocco, it assumes no obligation or responsibility as to the measures which may be necessary for the enforcement of the said Regulations and Declarations."
EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST). Convention between Great Britain and Russia, containing arrangements on the subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet.
Parallel with the Agreements—the "_Entente Cordiale_"—of 1904 between England and France, in its purpose and in its importance to Europe, was the Convention between England and Russia in 1907, which harmonized the interests and the policy of the two nations in matters relating to Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet. In each case the dictating motive looked not so much to a settlement of the particular questions involved, as to a general extinguishment of possible causes of contention which might at some time disturb the peaceful or friendly relations of the peoples concerned. Taken together, the two formally expressed understandings, Anglo-French and Anglo-Russian, added to the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1895 (see, in Volume VI. of this work, FRANCE: A. D. 1895) constituted, not a new Triple Alliance, set over against that of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, but an amicable conjunction which bore suggestions of alliance, and which introduced a counterweight in European politics that makes undoubtedly for peace.
The Anglo-Russian Convention, signed August 31, 1907, contained three distinct "Arrangements," under a common preamble, as follows:
"His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, animated by the sincere desire to settle by mutual agreement different questions concerning the interests of their States on the Continent of Asia, have determined to conclude Agreements destined to prevent all cause of misunderstanding between Great Britain and Russia in regard to the questions referred to, and have nominated for this purpose their respective Plenipotentiaries. … Who, having communicated to each other their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following:
Arrangement concerning Persia.
"The Governments of Great Britain and Russia having mutually engaged to respect the integrity and independence of Persia, and sincerely desiring the preservation of order throughout that country and its peaceful development, as well as the permanent establishment of equal advantages for the trade and industry of all other nations;
"Considering that each of them has, for geographical and economic reasons, a special interest in the maintenance of peace and order in certain provinces of Persia adjoining, or in the neighbourhood of, the Russian frontier on the one hand, and the frontiers of Afghanistan and Baluchistan on the other hand; and being desirous of avoiding all cause of conflict between their respective interests in the above-mentioned Provinces of Persia;
"Have agreed on the following terms:
"I. Great Britain engages not to seek for herself, and not to support in favour of British subjects, or in favour of the subjects of third Powers, any Concessions of a political or commercial nature—such as Concessions for railways, banks, telegraphs, roads, transport, insurance, &c.—beyond a line starting from Kasr-i-Shirin, passing through Isfahan, Yezd, Kakhk and ending at a point on the Persian frontier at the intersection of the Russian and Afghan frontiers, and not to oppose, directly or indirectly, demands for similar Concessions in this region which are supported by the Russian Government. It is understood that the above-mentioned places are included in the region in which Great Britain engages not to seek the Concessions referred to.
"II. Russia, on her part, engages not to seek for herself, and not to support in favour of Russian subjects, or in favour of the subjects of third Powers, any Concessions of a political or commercial nature—such as Concessions for railways, banks, telegraphs, roads, transport, insurance, &c.—beyond a line going from the Afghan frontier by way of Gazik, Birjand, Kerman, and ending at Bunder Abbas, and not to oppose, directly or indirectly, demands for similar Concessions in this region which are supported by the British Government. It is understood that the above-mentioned places are included in the region in which Russia engages not to seek the Concessions referred to.
{256}
"III. Russia, on her part, engages not to oppose, without previous arrangement with Great Britain, the grant of any Concessions whatever to British subjects in the regions of Persia situated between the lines mentioned in Articles I and II. Great Britain undertakes a similar engagement as regards the grant of Concessions to Russian subjects in the same regions of Persia. All Concessions existing at present in the regions indicated in Articles I and II are maintained.
"IV. It is understood that the revenues of all the Persian customs, with the exception of those of Farsistan and of the Persian Gulf, revenues guaranteeing the amortization and the interest of the loans concluded by the Government of the Shah with the ‘Banque d’Escompte et des Prêts de Perse ’ up to the date of the signature of the present Arrangement, shall be devoted to the same purpose as in the past. It is equally understood that the revenues of the Persian customs of Farsistan and of the Persian Gulf, as well as those of the fisheries on the Persian shore of the Caspian Sea and those of the Posts and Telegraphs, shall be devoted, as in the past, to the service of the loans concluded by the Government of the Shah with the Imperial Bank of Persia up to the date of the signature of the present Arrangement.
"V. In the event of irregularities occurring in the amortization or the payment of the interest of the Persian loans concluded with the ‘Banque d’Escompte et des Prêts de Perse’ and with the Imperial Bank of Persia up to the date of the signature of the present Arrangement, and in the event of the necessity arising for Russia to establish control over the sources of revenue guaranteeing the regular service of the loans concluded with the first-named bank, and situated in the region mentioned in Article II of the present Arrangement, or for Great Britain to establish control over the sources of revenue guaranteeing the regular service of the loans concluded with the second-named bank, and situated in the region mentioned in Article I of the present Arrangement, the British and Russian Governments undertake to enter beforehand into a friendly exchange of ideas with a view to determine, in agreement with each other, the measures of control in question and to avoid all interference which would not be in conformity with the principles governing the present Arrangement.
Convention concerning Afghanistan.
"The High Contracting Parties, in order to ensure perfect security on their respective frontiers in Central Asia and to maintain in these regions a solid and lasting peace, have concluded the following Convention:
"Article I. His Britannic Majesty’s Government declare that they have no intention of changing the political status of Afghanistan. His Britannic Majesty’s Government further engage to exercise their influence in Afghanistan only in a pacific sense, and they will not themselves take, nor encourage Afghanistan to take, any measures threatening Russia. The Russian Government, on their part, declare that they recognize Afghanistan as outside the sphere of Russian influence, and they engage that all their political relations with Afghanistan shall be conducted through the intermediary of His Britannic Majesty’s Government; they further engage not to send any Agents into Afghanistan.
"Article II. The Government of His Britannic Majesty having declared in the Treaty signed at Kabul on the 21st March, 1905, that they recognize the Agreement and the engagements concluded with the late Ameer Abdur Rahman, and that they have no intention of interfering in the internal government of Afghan territory, Great Britain engages neither to annex nor to occupy in contravention of that Treaty any portion of Afghanistan or to interfere in the internal administration of the country, provided that the Ameer fulfils the engagements already contracted by him towards His Britannic Majesty’s Government under the above-mentioned Treaty.
"Article III. The Russian and Afghan authorities, specially designated for the purpose on the frontier or in the frontier provinces, may establish direct relations with each other for the settlement of local questions of a non-political character.
"Article IV. His Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Russian Government affirm their adherence to the principle of equality of commercial opportunity in Afghanistan, and they agree that any facilities which may have been, or shall be hereafter obtained for British and British-Indian trade and traders, shall be equally enjoyed by Russian trade and traders. Should the progress of trade establish the necessity for Commercial Agents, the two Governments will agree as to what measures shall be taken, due regard, of course, being had to the Ameer’s sovereign rights.
"Article V. The present Arrangements will only come into force when His Britannic Majesty’s Government shall have notified to the Russian Government the consent of the Ameer to the terms stipulated above.
Arrangement concerning Thibet.
"The Governments of Great Britain and Russia recognizing the suzerain rights of China in Thibet, and considering the fact that Great Britain, by reason of her geographical position, has a special interest in the maintenance of the status quo in the external relations of Thibet, have made the following Arrangement:—
"Article I. The two High Contracting Parties engage to respect the territorial integrity of Thibet and to abstain from all interference in its internal administration.
"Article II. In conformity with the admitted principle of the suzerainty of China over Thibet, Great Britain and Russia engage not to enter into negotiations with Thibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government. This engagement does not exclude the direct relations between British Commercial Agents and the Thibetan authorities provided for in Article V of the Convention between Great Britain and Thibet of the 7th September, 1904, and confirmed by the Convention between Great Britain and China of the 27th April, 1906; nor does it modify the engagements entered into by Great Britain and China in Article I of the said Convention of 1906.
{257}
"It is clearly understood that Buddhists, subjects of Great Britain or of Russia, may enter into direct relations on strictly religious matters with the Dalai Lama and the other representatives of Buddhism in Thibet; the Governments of Great Britain and Russia engage, as far as they are concerned, not to allow those relations to infringe the stipulations of the present Arrangement.
"Article III. The British and Russian Governments respectively engage not to send Representatives to Lhassa.
"Article IV. The two High Contracting Parties engage neither to seek nor to obtain, whether for themselves or their subjects, any Concessions for railways, roads, telegraphs, and mines, or other rights in Thibet.
"Article V. The two Governments agree that no part of the revenues of Thibet, whether in kind or in cash, shall be pledged or assigned to Great Britain or Russia or to any of their subjects.
Annex to the Arrangement between Great Britain and Russia concerning Thibet.
"Great Britain reaffirms the Declaration, signed by his Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General of India and appended to the ratification of the Convention of the 7th September, 1904, to the effect that the occupation of the Chumbi Valley by British forces shall cease after the payment of three annual instalments of the indemnity of 25,000,000 rupees, provided that the trade marts mentioned in Article II of that Convention have been effectively opened for three years, and that in the meantime the Thibetan authorities have faithfully complied in all respects with the terms of the said Convention of 1904. It is clearly understood that if the occupation of the Chumbi Valley by the British forces has, for any reason, not been terminated at the time anticipated in the above Declaration, the British and Russian Governments will enter upon a friendly exchange of views on this subject."
As an Inclosure with the Convention, Notes were exchanged by the Plenipotentiaries, of which that from Mr. Nicolson was in the following words, M. Iswolsky replying to the same effect.
"ST. PETERSBURG, AUGUST 18 (31), 1907. "M. LE MINISTRE, "With reference to the Arrangement regarding Thibet, signed to-day, I have the honour to make the following Declaration to your Excellency:
"'His Britannic Majesty’s Government think it desirable, so far as they are concerned, not to allow, unless by a previous agreement with the Russian Government, for a period of three years from the date of the present communication, the entry into Thibet of any scientific mission whatever, on condition that a like assurance is given on the part of the Imperial Russian Government.
"‘His Britannic Majesty’s Government propose, moreover, to approach the Chinese Government with a view to induce them to accept a similar obligation for a corresponding period; the Russian Government will as a matter of course take similar action.
"‘At the expiration of the term of three years above mentioned His Britannic Majesty’s Government will, if necessary, consult with the Russian government as to the desirability of any ulterior measures with regard to scientific expeditions to Thibet.’ I avail, &c. (Signed) A. NICOLSON."
In authorizing Sir A. Nicolson to sign the preceding Convention, Sir Edward Grey, the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, wrote, on the 29th of August, as follows:
"I have to-day authorized your Excellency by telegraph to sign a Convention with the Russian Government containing Arrangements on the subject of Persia, Afghanistan, and Thibet.
"The Arrangement respecting Persia is limited to the regions of that country touching the respective frontiers of Great Britain and Russia in Asia, and the Persian Gulf is not part of those regions, and is only partly in Persian territory. It has not therefore been considered appropriate to introduce into the Convention a positive declaration respecting special interests possessed by Great Britain in the Gulf, the result of British action in those waters for more than a hundred years.
"His Majesty’s Government have reason to believe that this question will not give rise to difficulties between the two Governments, should developments arise which make further discussion affecting British interests in the Gulf necessary. For the Russian Government have in the course of the negotiations leading up to the conclusion of this Arrangement explicitly stated that they do not deny the special interests of Great Britain in the Persian Gulf—a statement of which His Majesty’s Government have formally taken note.
"In order to make it quite clear that the present Arrangement is not intended to affect the position in the Gulf, and does not imply any change of policy respecting it on the part of Great Britain, His Majesty’s Government think it desirable to draw attention to previous declarations of British policy, and to reaffirm generally previous statements as to British interests in the Persian Gulf and the importance of maintaining them.
"His Majesty’s Government will continue to direct all their efforts to the preservation of the _status quo_ in the Gulf and the maintenance of British trade; in doing so, they have no desire to exclude the legitimate trade of any other Power."
_Parliamentary Papers by Command. Russia. Number 1. 1907 (Cd. 3750)._
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908. Treaties respecting the Independence and Territorial Integrity of Norway, and concerning the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the territories bordering upon the North Sea.
Two Treaties of great importance to the security of peace in Europe, having for object a joint protection by several Powers of existing conditions on the North Sea and the Baltic exit to it, were concluded and signed on the 2d of November, 1907, and the 23d of April, 1908, respectively. The parties to the first of these Treaties were Great Britain, France, Germany, Norway, and Russia, and its purpose was "to secure to Norway, within her present frontiers and with her neutral zone, her independence and territorial integrity, as also the benefits of peace." It was signed at Christiania, where ratifications were deposited on the 6th of February following: The following is the text of the Treaty;
{258}
"Article I. The Norwegian Government undertake not to cede any portion of the territory of Norway to any Power to hold on a title founded either on occupation, or on any other ground whatsoever.
"Article II. The German, French, British, and Russian Governments recognize and undertake to respect the integrity of Norway. If the integrity of Norway is threatened or impaired by any Power whatsoever, the German, French, British, and Russian Governments undertake, on the receipt of a previous communication to this effect from the Norwegian Government, to afford to that Government their support, by such means as may be deemed the most appropriate, with a view to safeguarding the integrity of Norway.
"Article III. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years from the day of the exchange of ratifications. If the Treaty is not denounced by any of the parties at least two years before the expiration of the said period, it will remain in force, in the same manner as before, for a further period of ten years and so on accordingly.
"In the event of the Treaty being denounced by one of the Powers who have participated with Norway in the conclusion of the present Treaty, such denunciation shall have effect only as far as that Power is concerned.
"Article IV. The present Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Christiania as soon as possible."
The second of the two Treaties was in two documents, styled "Declaration and Memorandum between the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, concerning the maintenance of the _Status Quo_ in the territories bordering upon the North Sea." They were signed at Berlin, where ratifications were deposited on the 2d of July, 1908, and were in the following terms:
"Declaration. The British, Danish, French, German, Netherland, and Swedish Governments,
"Animated by the desire to strengthen the ties of neighbourly friendship existing between their respective countries, and to contribute thereby to the preservation of universal peace, and recognizing that their policy with respect to the regions bordering on the North Sea is directed to the maintenance of the existing territorial _status quo_,
"Declare that they are firmly resolved to preserve intact, and mutually to respect, the sovereign rights which their countries at present enjoy over their respective territories in those regions.
"Should any events occur which, in the opinion of any of the above-mentioned Governments, threaten the existing territorial _status quo_ in the regions bordering upon the North Sea, the Powers Signatory of the present Declaration will communicate with each other in order to concert, by an agreement to be arrived at between them, such measures as they may consider it useful to take in the interest of the maintenance of the _status quo_ as regards their possessions.
"The present Declaration shall be ratified with the least possible delay. The ratifications shall be deposited at Berlin as soon as may be, and, at the latest, on the 31st December, 1908. The deposit of each ratification shall be recorded in a Protocol, of which a certified copy shall be forwarded through the diplomatic channel to the Signatory Powers.
"Memorandum. At the moment of signing the Declaration of this day’s date, the Under signed, by order of their respective Governments, consider it necessary to state—
"1. That the principle of the maintenance of the _status quo_, as laid down by the said Declaration, applies solely to the territorial integrity of all the existing possessions of the High Contracting Parties in the regions bordering upon the North Sea, and that consequently the Declaration can in no case be invoked where the free exercise of the sovereign rights of the High Contracting Parties over their above-mentioned respective possessions is in question;
"2. That, for the purposes of the said Declaration, the North Sea shall be considered to extend eastwards as far as its junction with the waters of the Baltic."
_British Parliamentary Papers by Command, Treaty Series No. 35, 1907, and 23, 1908 (Cd. 3754 and 4248)._
EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1909. The Situation in Crete as controlled by the Four Protecting Powers.
See (in this Volume) CRETE: A. D. 1907-1909.
EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (October-March). Declaration of Bulgarian Independence. Austrian Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Excitement of Servia. The menace to European peace. The question of a Conference. Attitude of Germany. Was Russia coerced to assent? Violation of the Public Law of Europe.
On the 5th of October, 1908, the independence of Bulgaria as a Kingdom was formally proclaimed, the suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey renounced, and Prince Ferdinand invested with the title of Tzar, or King. This proceeding was consequent on the revolution in Turkey, which had resurrected the suspended Constitution of 1876, broken the despotism of the Sultanate and subjected it to a Parliamentary system of government.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908, JULY-DECEMBER.
Never having accepted the arrangements of 1878, made by the Congress of Berlin, which gave them self-government but kept them tributary and nominally subject to the over lordship of the Sultan, the Bulgarians had but waited for the opportunity which now seemed to invite this act.
See, in Volume V. of this work, TURKS: A. D. 1878; and in Volume I., BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, and 1878-1886)
An immediate provocation to their declaration of independence was supplied by a thoughtless offence to them given by the new Ministry at Constantinople. To celebrate the triumph of the revolution a state dinner was given, the Sultan presiding, and all the diplomats at the Turkish capital were invited to it excepting the representative of Bulgaria. When he asked for an explanation of this exception he was told that he could not be recognized as an ambassador or envoy, but only as the agent of a subject province. This was enough to set Bulgaria aflame. Her affronted Minister at Constantinople was withdrawn and diplomatic intercourse with the Turkish Government dropped. The breach was accentuated further by the recent occurrence of a strike on the railway, owned by the Turkish Government, which traverses both Turkish and Bulgarian territory. The Bulgarians had taken possession of and were operating the section within their own domain, and when the strike was called off the Government announced its intention to retain that portion of the line, with due compensation to the company which leased it. This proceeding intensified and doubled the ferments produced by the proclamation of independence. Statesmen were disturbed by the violation of the Treaty of Berlin and capitalists by the danger which menaced their Turkish railway securities.
{259}
But this tells of only half the threatening incidents of the time. Simultaneously with the Bulgarian defiance of the Treaty of Berlin and its signatory sponsors, the Government of Austria-Hungary broke away from its obligations, by a formal announcement that the simple occupation and administration of Bosnia, and Herzegovina, which that treaty had permitted the Dual Empire to undertake, was now to be complete annexation, by no other authority than the Imperial will to have it so.
Many interests and ambitions, many jealousies and distrusts among the Powers, were disturbed and excited by this sudden disordering of the political geography of Southeastern Europe. Pan-Slavic feelings and hopes were profoundly antagonistic to the Austrian absorption of more Slavic populations and lands. Servia was alarmed to desperation by the aggrandizement of her dangerous great neighbor, and Russia was more than sympathetic with her alarm. What Turkey could or would do in vindication of her treaty rights over Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, was a question of little gravity compared with that which asked what Servia might attempt in resistance to the Austrian scheme, and what Russia would venture if an Austro-Servian war should break out. The situation very soon became one in which any act of hostility on any side could hardly fail to precipitate a great tempest of war; and thus the peace of Europe was held in a trembling balance for months. The state of affairs was described clearly and with ample knowledge at the time by Mr. Archibald R. Colquhoun, in a paper which he read in London, at a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts. "The more hot-headed Servians," he said, "undoubtedly felt that their whole future was imperilled, and that they might as well risk all on a desperate hazard, in the belief that intervention would come to their assistance should their independence be threatened. The close racial ties between the Bosnians, Servians, and Montenegrins made it impossible to say how far an armed movement might spread if it once broke out. While Turkey and Bulgaria might come to terms, and while Austria might effect an amicable arrangement with Turkey, it was difficult to see how the question of the Southern Slavs was to be finally adjusted unless Austria could placate them in sections, and so perhaps divide them. Concessions of a comparatively unimportant nature might induce Montenegro to keep quiet, and a liberal policy, with a promise of autonomy in the near future, would discount a good deal of the agitation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The more far-sighted Bosnians appreciated the fact that their shortest cut to comparative freedom lay through that local autonomy which they could legitimately demand from Austria. …
"The spectacle of these Southern Slave countries, whose peoples exhibited so many splendid qualities, but yet did not have that instinct for government which characterized some far less gifted races, was rather a melancholy one. In the tangle of mountains, races, and religions which made up the Balkans the people needed peace above every other thing—a breathing space in which to develop themselves and their resources, and to get a truer perspective on their position in Europe. To the Great Powers who controlled the destinies of these small ones peace was no less essential, but it was not quite clear that Austria-Hungary, with the great military power of Germany behind her, realized this or was prepared to ‘seek peace and ensue it.’ It was this uncertainty which made many await with anxiety the melting of the Balkan snows, which put an end to enforced inactivity in those regions."
Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy were agreed in desiring a Conference of the Powers which had been parties to the Berlin Treaty of thirty years before, to adjudicate all the questions raised by the acts of Austria and Bulgaria, in contravention of that treaty. Austria was supported by Germany in holding back from such a conference, and nothing definite in that direction was done. Meantime Turkey was brought to negotiations with both of the trespassers on her ancient sovereignty, and within a few months she came to terms with both. The arrangement with Austria, determining an indemnity to be paid for the surrender of Turkish claims to Bosnia and Herzegovina, was quickened by a boycott of Austrian merchandise in Turkey, so extensive as to be felt very seriously in Austrian and Hungarian trade. By the terms of a protocol, which was signed on the 26th of February, 1909, Austria-Hungary paid £T2,500,000 ($10,800,000) of indemnity to the Ottoman Government; assured religious freedom and political equality to Mussulman Bosniaks who should choose to remain in the province, with liberty of emigration during three years to all who might choose to depart, and promised a commercial treaty on lines which the Turks desired. This cleared the situation as between Austria and Turkey, but intensified the Servian and Montenegrin bitterness of anger and dread, which menaced the peace of the continent for another month.
Meantime the terms of a Turkish adjustment with Bulgaria had been practically settled, on the basis of a helpful suggestion from St. Petersburg. Bulgaria offered $16,400,000 of indemnity; Turkey claimed $24,000,000. The bargaining was at a standstill until Russia offered to remit a yearly war-indemnity of $1,600,000 which Russia owed her under the Berlin Treaty, until the Turkish claim on Bulgaria should be satisfied, while she would collect from Bulgaria in similar instalments until the offer of the latter had been made good. Inasmuch as the Turkish debt to Russia bore no interest, while Bulgaria would pay interest on the deferred payments to Russia, the Muscovite treasury would suffer no loss. The matter was so arranged, and the interests of peace were served by a most ingenious and happy device.
{260}
But peace was made more than insecure for some weeks yet by the irreconcilability of Servia to the Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course that small State could not hope to resist it successfully alone, or with Montenegrin aid; but a desperate venture of war, into which Russia might be dragged, and if Russia, then Germany,—and who could tell what other powers!—and out of the wreckage of which something better for Southeastern Europe than an Austro-Hungarian domination might be drawn,—this appeal to the lottery of battle seemed a dangerous temptation to the Servian mind. It was extinguished as such in the end by the decision of Russia to drop the project of a Conference of Powers, accept the action of Austria, and recognize, unreservedly, on her own part, the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an accomplished fact. This was announced on the 15th of March, and with the announcement came excited and exciting reports that Germany had extorted the concession from the Russian Government, by pressures that were humiliating, but which the Empire, in its present circumstances, was powerless to resist. Germany denied having exercised an illegitimate pressure in the matter, but made no concealment of the fact that she stood by Austria-Hungary with approval of what the Imperial Government at Vienna had done. In a speech on the 29th of March Chancellor Bülow was reported as saying:
"In her quarrel with Servia Austria indisputably had right on her side. The annexation was no cynical act of robbery, but the last step on the road of the political work of civilization which had been followed for 30 years with the recognition of the Powers. Any offence against the form of the law had been disposed of by the negotiations with Turkey, and after this agreement between the parties most nearly interested the formal recognition of the other Powers signatory of the Berlin Treaty could not be withheld. The controllers of Russian policy, and especially the Emperor Nicholas, had earned the gratitude of all friends of peace in Europe. Concerning the Conference question, Germany still had no objection in principle to a Conference in which all the Powers took part and of which the programme was established in advance. They had been charged with inactivity, but they had no reason for special activity. They had done what they could and used influence, not without success, between Vienna and Constantinople, and also between Vienna and St. Petersburg. They had, however, carefully observed the limits prescribed by their interests and their loyalty. They had done nothing, and they would do nothing, which could afford the smallest doubt of their determination to sacrifice no vital interest of Austria-Hungary, and they would have nothing to do with suggestions to Austria which were incompatible with the dignity of the Hapsburg Monarchy. They had experiences of their own to inspire caution with regard to playing the part of the broker, even in the most honourable way. … To sum up, by loyalty to her ally Germany best secured her own interests and contributed most to the maintenance of the peace of Europe."
On the day of this speech at Berlin the London _Times_ expressed, in an editorial article, what was then and what continues to be the prevailing belief and judgment of the best informed political circles throughout Europe, when it said: "The decision of the Russian Government to recognize the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was, of course, an admission of their inability, in present circumstances, to countenance the aspirations of the Southern Slavs. The intense and general indignation which it has excited in Russia is natural, and indeed, in the known state of public feeling, inevitable. We trust, however, that it may be kept within bounds, and that it will not find expression in useless and vehement invective. Those who are tempted to indulge in it without restraint should reflect upon the difficulties which confront the responsible rulers of the State, and should consider whether, as Statesmen answerable for the future, as well as for the immediate present, of the Empire and of the Slav race, those rulers could wisely have rejected the proposal peremptorily made to them by the German Ambassador. The cardinal fact in the situation—the fact upon which Austria-Hungary and Germany have based their calculations and determined their action throughout—is that Russia could not for some time to come engage in a great war without incurring unjustified risks. Nothing, we may be sure, but the overwhelming consciousness of this fact could have induced the Emperor and his advisers to adopt the decision to which they came a few days ago. They must have been well aware of the painful effect which it was certain to produce, in the first instance, abroad as well as at home. None can have realized more acutely than they that the presentation of the demand was humiliating, and that the circumstances attending it were eminently calculated to make that humiliation bitter. But they held, and rightly held, that it was their duty to accept humiliation rather than to jeopardize the great permanent interests which are committed to their keeping. They might, indeed, have been somewhat less precipitate. They might reasonably have asked for time for consulting the Powers with whom they have acted, and who have consistently supported them, upon the proposals which Germany sprang upon them. The fact that they did not do so is a significant indication that the pressure which Count Pourtalès was instructed to put upon them must have been of the most imperious and dictatorial kind.
"As to the precise form of the intimation conveyed to M. Isvolsky by the German Ambassador no definite information is yet forthcoming, but of its nature there can be no possible doubt. Our Paris Correspondent learns that, immediately after his interview with Count Pourtalès, the Russian Minister summoned a Council, and, after a hasty audience with the Tsar, communicated to the German Ambassador Russia’s acquiescence in the demands of his Government. There was no alternative to this course, as we are told from St. Petersburg, unless Russia was prepared to face the consequences of the mobilization of the German Army. The matter, our Correspondent adds, was treated as of ‘supreme urgency,’ from which it may be inferred that a reply was required without delay. The Council of Ministers knew what ‘German mobilization’ in the circumstances would mean."
{261}
In appearance, if not in reality, Germany or Germany’s Kaiser had again, as in the Morocco affair of 1905, taken advantage of the weakened circumstances of Russia to play a dictatorial part in European politics. The distrust and apprehension kept alive by such repeated performances of the military big stick at Berlin seem infinitely more dangerous to Europe than any possible explosion of the unstable compounds of race, religion, and lawless politics that are mixed in the Balkan magazine. For the time being, however, the sparks that sputtered alarmingly in the latter, throughout the winter of 1908-1909, were easily extinguished by the sudden dash of cold water upon them from St. Petersburg. Great Britain, France, and Italy, accepting the situation, joined Germany and Russia in persuading the Government at Belgrade to be equally submissive to events. Their persuasions were effective, and a note to the following purpose, which the Powers in question had formulated, was signed by the Servian Ministry and presented to the Government at Vienna on the 31st of March:
"(1.) Servia declares that her rights have not been violated by the annexation by Austria-Hungary of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and accepts the Powers’ decision to annul paragraph 25 of the Treaty of Berlin.
(2.) Servia will not protest against the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
(3.) Servia will maintain peaceful relations with Austria-Hungary.
(4.) Servia will return her military forces to normal conditions, and will discharge the reservists and volunteers; she will not permit the formation of irregular troops or bands."
The arbitrary annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was now legitimated; the Treaty of Berlin was revised by violations condoned; a serious precedent had been injected into European public law. What was said on the subject by the London _Times_ on the morning after the delivery of the Servian note is hardly open to the least dispute. "The danger of war," said the Times, "has thus, we may confidently hope, been averted. But the sense of immediate relief with which this deliverance may well be greeted cannot blind us to the cost at which it has been achieved. The first great international compact to which the new German Empire of the Hohenzollerns subscribed within a few months of its proclamation at Versailles was that which embodied the resolutions of the London Conference of 1871. The European Powers, rightly disputing Russia’s claim to denounce motu proprio the Black Sea Clauses of the Treaty of Paris, maintained that no revision of an international treaty could take place without ‘impartial examination’ and ‘free discussion.’ None upheld that principle more stoutly than Austria-Hungary. Russia herself finally accepted it, and it was solemnly placed on record by Lord Granville in his opening speech as President of the London Conference. It was embodied in a Protocol, signed by all the Plenipotentiaries of the Powers, laying down as ‘an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can repudiate treaty engagements or modify treaty provisions, except with the consent of the contracting parties by mutual agreement.’ That instrument has, until recently, governed the public law of Europe. In conformity with its provisions, Russia, after her war with Turkey in 1877-1878, was fain to submit the Treaty of San Stefano to the Congress of Berlin; and again in 1885 a Conference was held at Constantinople to settle the question of the union of Eastern Rumelia with Bulgaria which had been effected in violation of the Treaty of Berlin. Five months ago, immediately after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary and the proclamation of Bulgarian independence, Great Britain, France, and Russia were agreed, after M. Isvolsky’s conversations with M. Clemenceau and Sir Edward Grey, that the same 'essential principle of the law of nations’ was once more at stake and must be upheld. Italy adhered subsequently to that agreement, which took shape in the suggestion for a conference, and neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary openly rejected it at the time. …
"The terms of the submission now made by Servia at the instance of the Powers show how far we have travelled away from that ‘essential principle of the law of nations’ since October last. … Whether the formal ratification of the breaches of international law which were committed last autumn takes place now at a Conference, or by an exchange of Notes, is a matter of small moment. In substance the Powers have already conveyed their acquiescence in the abrogation of Article XXV. of the Berlin Treaty concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, without the slightest show even of that ‘impartial examination’ and ‘perfectly free discussion’ which the London Conference of 1871 laid down as an essential preliminary to the revision of treaty engagements."
There was an illuminating sequel to this transaction near the end of the year, in the trial of a libel suit, known as the Friedjung case, which uncovered many hidden circumstances of the annexation. One of the arguments by which the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was defended at the time was the necessity of putting an end to an alleged conspiracy of the Southern Slavs against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
See (in this Volume), AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1908-1909. "Agram Trials", page 40.)
At the trial it was proved that the "documents" which had been accepted as proving the existence of this conspiracy were forgeries of the clumsiest description.
EUROPE: A. D. 1909. Changed conditions making for peace. Three striking examples.
Speaking at Sheffield, England, on the occasion of "the Cutlers’ Feast," October 21, Sir Edward Grey, the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, called to mind, in a few admirable sentences, three illustrations in the past year of wonderfully changed conditions in Europe, making for peace. He said:
"In the world at large to-day—if I may say a few words about the business of my own department—there is no doubt plenty of trouble, as there always is, but if you take the true measure of the situation by comparing it with what it was a short time ago, the outlook is distinctly favourable. I will give you three points which are, I think, subjects of congratulation.
"It is only a year ago to this very month that we were at the beginning of what was called the Balkan crisis. I do not know whether the Budget has driven all recollection of it from your minds, but it did occupy a good deal of attention a year ago and for some months afterwards. For a long time it had been almost an axiom of the diplomacy of Europe that some day or other there would be trouble in the Balkans, and that, when that trouble came, there would be danger of a European war. The trouble came a year ago; it caused anxiety; there was a storm; and for some months some anxiety as to whether one or other of the Great European Powers might not drift from their moorings. {262} But the anchors held, and now the swell has subsided, and though there may be trouble again in the future, the fact that the Great Powers of Europe have passed through the Balkan troubles of the last year and yet maintained their peace is a good augury that in future troubles the same may be done.
"Then I will take the question of Persia. A few years ago, had any one foretold exactly what has happened in Persia in the last year—that there would be a revolution, that there would be great outbreaks of disorder throughout the country, and that the Shah would be deposed—he would certainly have said that it would be a time of considerable anxiety both for Russia and for ourselves. A few years ago the representatives of those two countries were watching each other in Persia with jealousy, suspicion, and distrust. Had what has happened in Persia in the last year happened a few years ago when those were the relations between the two countries, I do not say that there would actually have been war, but there would certainly have been considerable anxiety and considerable scares in the public opinion of both countries as to the effect upon their relations with each other. Now we have passed through the troubles of the last year in Persia, and in no section of the Press of either country, in no section of public opinion of either country, has there been a fear that relations between ourselves and Russia would be impaired by what was happening in Persia.
"The third subject to which I would refer is that of Morocco. Morocco is to-day very full of trouble, and the trouble is a matter of concern and worry to those Powers who have conterminous frontiers in Morocco. That of course is so, but look back over the last few years and survey. The matter which occupied men’s minds in regard to Morocco was not the troubles in Morocco itself but the possible effect which events in Morocco might have upon the relations of the European Powers to each other. To-day the trouble continues in Morocco, but during the last year the anxiety that what was happening in Morocco might cause serious difficulties between European Powers themselves has greatly diminished if it has not entirely disappeared. That, again, is a satisfactory retrospect."
EUROPE: A. D. 1909. Contradictory feeling and action concerning War. Its causes. International Barbarism with Inter-personal Civilization. The two main knots of difficulty in the situation. Great Britain and Germany.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
EUROPE: A. D. 1909. Size and cost of its armies.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
----------EUROPE: End--------
EVANS, Rear-Admiral Robley D.: Commanding the American Battleship Fleet.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
EVICTED TENANTS ACT.
See (in this Volume) IRELAND: A. D. 1907.
EXCLUSION OF ALIENS.
See (in this Volume) IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION, AND RACE PROBLEMS.
EXPATRIATION: Its Rights. Principles maintained by the United States.
See (in this Volume) NATURALIZATION.
EXPLORATION, Polar.
See (in this Volume) POLAR EXPLORATION.
EXPOSITIONS, Industrial.
See (in this Volume) BUFFALO; ST. LOUIS; CHARLESTON; JAMESTOWN; PORTLAND, OREGON; SEATTLE.
EZCURRA, COLONEL: Deposed President of Paraguay.
See (in this Volume) PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.
F.
FABIAN SOCIETY.
See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
FAIRBANKS, Charles W.: Elected Vice-President of the United States.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).
FAKUMENN RAILWAY QUESTION, between Japan and China.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1905-1909.
FALLIÈRES, ARMAND: President of the French Senate.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1903.
FALLIÈRES, ARMAND: President of the French Republic.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1906.
FALL RIVER STRIKE, in the Cotton Mills.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1905.
FAMINES: In China.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1906-1907.
FAMINES: In India: The poverty they signify.
See (in this Volume) INDIA; A. D. 1905-1908.
FAMINES: In Russia.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904.
FARADAY, MICHAEL: His Prophetic Conception of Radiant Matter.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE, RECENT: RADIUM.
FARM COLONY, Cleveland, Ohio.
See (in this Volume) CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF.
FARMAN, Henri.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: AERONAUTICS.
FARMERS’ ORGANIZATIONS.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909; and LABOR REMUNERATION: COÖPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
FEDAKIARANS, The.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
FEDERAL PARTY.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 and 1907.
FEHIM PASHA, THE FATE OF.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908(JULY-DECEMBER), AND 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
FEJERVARY MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
FENGHUANGCHENG.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
FENSHUILING.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), AND (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
FERRER, Professor Francisco: His trial and execution.
See (in this Volume) Spain: A. D. 1907-1909.
FERTILIZER TRUST: Dissolution and indictment.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.
{263}
FETVA, of the Sheik-ul-Islam.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
FIALA ARCTIC EXPLORATION.
See (in this Volume) POLAR EXPLORATION.
FICHTE’S PROPHECY, of a World Commonwealth.
See (in this Volume) WORLD MOVEMENTS.
FILIPINO CATHOLIC CHURCH, Independent.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902.
----------FINANCE AND TRADE: Start--------
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909. A Review of the decade. The Sequence of Phenomena from the beginning of "the great Trade Boom" to the Collapse of 1907, and after. The Process of Recovery.
On the 31st of December, 1908, the New York _Evening Post_ gave an admirably studied and clear, though succinct, review of the sequence of phenomena in financial and commercial affairs that could be traced through "the series of years since the great trade boom began which collapsed in 1907," and thence to the close of 1908. By permission of the proprietors of the _Evening Post_ a considerable part of that review is quoted here. While it relates more especially to conditions and events in the United States, it affords substantially a summary of the financial history of the world from 1901 to 1908, both inclusive:
"1901. This was preeminently the ‘boom year’—much more legitimately so, as events have proved, than 1905 or 1906, when overstrained capital resources gave an atmosphere of unreality to what seemed altogether real in the days of abundant capital in 1901. It is first to be said of 1901 that a probably unexampled surplus of ready capital in the United States, and a certainly unprecedented foreign credit balance—due to our amazing surplus of exports over imports—happened to coincide with a period of European trade reaction which released foreign capital from foreign industries and left it free for use in America. Presuming the foregoing influences, the six main causes for the phenomena of 1901 were:
(1) The series of enormous company amalgamations, beginning with the billion-dollar Steel incorporation, and culminating in the purchase of the British steamship lines at wildly extravagant prices; these operations being based on issues of securities in unprecedented quantity;
(2) Formation of ‘underwriting syndicates’ to float these securities, one of those syndicates receiving a bonus of $50,000,000 for one year’s use of $25,000,000, and all of them using freely for their purposes the surpluses of life insurance companies and the deposits of trust companies;
(3) Acquisition of control of great railway companies by powerful millionaires, through purchase of stock of these railways in the open market, often at extravagant prices; the purchase-money being obtained through issue of bonds by railways already under control of the purchasers;
(4) Wild speculation by the public;
(5) Sudden fright of Europe at our excesses, withdrawal of its capital, and consequent severe reaction in our markets;
(6) The failure of the corn crop, which in the summer applied a further check to this speculation, but which was itself offset by a wheat crop larger than any harvested in this country before or since, and sold at the highest average price since 1897.
"1902. This year was one both of reaction and of further expansion; it was both a legitimate sequel to 1901 and a legitimate forerunner of 1903. …
"Its salient phenomena were these:
(1) Abundant harvests;
(2) Overstraining of bank resources by financial ‘deals’ and Stock Exchange speculation, exhausting the bank surplus in September;
(3) Enormous increase in imports and decrease in agricultural exports, along with Europe’s withdrawal of its capital;
(4) Rapid advance in cost of raw material and labor;
(5) Struggle of capitalists to so entrench themselves in control of corporate enterprises that they could not be dislodged.
"1903. The year which followed was an entirely logical sequel. Its controlling factors were:
(1) Forced liquidation by individuals and syndicates who were tied up in new securities at a time when the investing public withdrew from the market;
(2) Inability of great corporations to sell bonds, and their resort to notes at a high interest rate;
(3) Abundant grain crops, but an inadequate cotton crop, with great speculation, and famine prices;
(4) Rapid fall in the price of steel and iron;
(5) Severe contraction in profits of industrial combinations, with reduced dividends in some, reorganization of capital in others, and bankruptcy in still others.
"1904. For obvious reasons, 1904 is an interesting year to compare with 1908. Both were in a sense 'after-panic years,’ though the strain of 1903, and the resultant financial and commercial reaction of 1904, were trifles compared with those of the past two years. It will be seen that 1904, which did in fact usher in another great boom in trade, paralleled closely in some respects the history of 1908, but in others diverged very widely from it. Its dominant influences were:
(1) A huge surplus reserve at the New York banks, reaching in August a height only four times exceeded in the country’s history, and as a result a 1 per cent. call money market during two-thirds of the year;
(2) The largest gold export movement in the history of the country;
(3) A midsummer recovery on the Stock Exchange, with large investment buying;
(4) A Presidential campaign, which hardly affected business;
(5) Substantial, but not very rapid, trade revivals, without any of the extravagant optimism of 1908;
(6) Famine prices for cotton during half the year, followed by a new crop unparalleled in history, and by a heavy fall in prices;
(7) Virtual disappearance of our export trade in wheat, with the smallest harvest since 1900, the highest prices since 1898, and the smallest shipment to Europe since 1872. The Russian war, which began in February, affected our markets only indirectly.
{264}
" 1905. This year’s history is better understood to-day than it has been before. The testimony of the whole financial and commercial world now is, that the exploiting of capital in trade and speculation, which eventually brought about the recent panic, and the abnormal enhancement of cost of living, which lifted the average price of commodities as much in two years as it had risen in the eight preceding years, began in the middle of 1905. These were the salient incidents of the financial year:
(1) Rapid and vigorous trade revival, with industry and production probably more active than at any previous period, and with profits and dividends enhanced;
(2) Exposure of the use of life insurance funds by promoting and speculating millionaires, an exposure which ended in legislation preventing such use of them in future speculations;
(3) World-wide money stringency, with the New York bank surplus twice exhausted, London’s bank position the weakest since 1890, and Berlin’s the weakest since 1897;
(4) Excited stock speculation for the rise, in this country and in Germany, which in New York almost wholly disregarded the abnormal strain on money.
"1906. Neither the $400,000,000 loss at San Francisco in April, nor the Treasury’s efforts to relieve an overstrained New York money market in September, was a fundamental cause for the events of 1906. They were a true sequel to 1905, and may be summarized as follows:
(1) Enormous Volume of trade, the whole world over, with rapid rise in price of goods, but equally rapid rise in cost of raw material and labor;
(2) Grain harvests, as a whole, never paralleled in Volume, and wheat crop second only to 1901;
(3) Wild speculation by all classes of the community, particularly in land, mining shares, and Stock Exchange securities, but not as a rule in produce, the wealthiest capitalists in the country entering into stock speculation in the late summer, and using most unscrupulously their power over company finance to help along their purposes;
(4) Overstrained bank resources as a result, with five deficits at New York, occurring in spring, autumn, and winter, two of these deficits being the largest since 1893;
(5) Abnormally high money rates all the year, with the highest September rate for call loans ever reached in New York, and the highest rate for time loans and merchants’ paper reached at that time of year since 1872;
(6) Sudden decision by Europe that American credit was unlimited, and the consequent placing of foreign capital unrestrictedly at our disposal;
(7) Struggle between London and New York for possession of new gold arriving in London, resulting in our import of $40,000,000 gold from Europe in the spring, and $45,000,000 in the autumn, and leading to a rise of the Bank of England rate to 6 per cent. for the first time since the Boer war panic, and to an energetic effort on the Bank’s part to stop the wholesale equipping of the American speculation with London bank money.
"1907. The panic year’s story may be told without further introduction, summing up thus its characteristic events:
(1) Withdrawal by Europe of the capital loaned to us in 1906, leading, early in the year, to $32,000,000 gold exports to Europe, of which $25,000,000 went to France:
(2) Partial withdrawal of their capital from Wall Street by interior markets, which were said to have had $400,000,000 outstanding in New York during 1906;
(3) Distress of the immensely wealthy capitalists who had tied themselves up in the Wall Street speculation of 1906, their forced liquidation on an enormous scale, and consequent demoralized Stock Exchange markets in March and August;
(4) Very abnormal crop weather throughout the spring and over nearly all the world, with a resultant shortage of the whole world’s wheat crop, the deficit of supplies below expected requirements being probably the largest since 1890.
"(5) Revelation of unsound banking practices at New York in October; leading to the failure of the Knickerbocker Trust, a formidable run on the banks, adoption of Clearing House certificates in all the larger cities and issue of emergency credit currency in many; to restriction of cash payments to depositors throughout the country, to a premium on currency, to complete demoralization of interior exchange, and to insolvency of several large industrial companies and numerous banks—neither, however, reaching the number which shortly followed the panic of 1893;
(6) Import of $100,000,000 gold from Europe during November and December, most of it bought at a premium and some of it engaged with sight sterling at 4.91;
(7) As a result, large inroads on the Bank of England’s gold reserve, rise in the bank rate from 4½ to 7 per cent., rapid advance of all continental bank rates, and loan of large sums of gold by the Bank of France to the Bank of England.
"(8) Precarious position of financial Germany throughout the year, important failures at Hamburg, minor financial panics in Holland, Egypt, Italy, and Chili, many of them before our own;
(9) Intervention of our Treasury, which wisely placed all its surplus on deposit with the banks in October, and most unwisely undertook to issue $150,000,000 bonds and notes in November to provide basis for new bank-note circulation;
(10) Recovery in markets late in November, with slow return of the bank situation to normal, the currency premium at New York lasting longer than in either 1893 or 1873;
(11) Discharge of laborers from employment all over the country, and the beginning of severe trade reaction—all this in spite of the largest annual gold output in the history of the world.
"1908. Now comes the present remarkable after-panic year, of which the salient phenomena may be thus summed up:
(1) Spasmodic and irregular recovery in trade activity, starting from a very low level, with merchants rushing in suddenly with orders—in February, in July, and in November—when their shelves were almost depleted, these buying impulses ceasing as suddenly as they had begun, leaving trade stagnation again;
(2) Slow increase in consumption of merchandise, here and abroad, the ratio being below 30 per cent. of normal at the beginning of the year, and 60 to 75 per cent. on the average at its close;
(3) Sudden shrinkage of our international commerce, merchandise trade in eleven months falling $478,000,000 from 1907, a decline of 15 per cent., of which $326,000,000 was imports and $152,000,000 exports, experience of European nations being similar;
(4) Enormous increase in the unemployed, leading, at the Atlantic ports, to an emigration 250,000 larger than immigration;
(5) Severe contraction of railway earnings, resulting in twenty-four railway insolvencies, involving the largest capital of any receiverships since those of 1893, and causing many dividend reductions, but followed, after the middle of the year, by such enormous reduction in expenses that, in some cases, autumn net earnings actually increased over 1907;
{265}
"(6) Sudden rush of currency into the banks, as a result, first of removal of restrictions on depositors and next of idle trade, with resultant change from a $20,000,000 New York bank deficit at the end of 1907 to a surplus of $40,000,000 at the end of January and of $66,000,000 on June 27—the latter being second only to the $111,000,000 maximum of 1894;
(7) As a consequence, abnormally low rates for money, call loans going at 2 per cent. before the end of January, at 1 per cent. in eighteen weeks of the present year, and at less than 1 per cent. in three weeks;
(8) Export of $73,000,000 gold, the largest (except for 1904) since 1895, and net export of $45,000,000, the largest in thirteen years;
"(9) In spite of the above recited facts, a constant spirit of optimism throughout the year, expressing itself, first in the organization of ‘Prosperity Leagues’ which held conventions and proclaimed that if people would only decide to be prosperous, they would be prosperous, and second by a series of extravagant speculative movements on the Stock Exchange, in the course of which it was declared in February, in July, and in November, that we were not only destined to get back into the boom of 1906, but that we were there already;
(10) A wheat harvest which in midsummer promised to be the second largest on record, but which turned out only of average Volume, the quality and price for this and other cereals, however, being so good as to enhance very greatly the wealth of the agricultural West;
(11) A Presidential election, the result of which the markets and all experienced people foresaw from the beginning, but of which it was alleged, for two weeks in November, that its outcome had totally changed for the better the entire aspect of American business affairs."
1909. The following, from the New York _Evening Post_ of December 31, 1909, continues the review:
The noteworthy characteristics of "the year which ends to-day, … so far as they can now be discerned, have been as follows:
(1) Rapid industrial recovery, beginning with the steel trade’s reduction of prices, leading in September to the largest monthly output of iron and steel in the history of the country, and to heavy demand from consumers, but contrasting singularly with the copper market, where signs of overproduction were visible throughout the year;
(2) Very rapid increase in cost of necessaries of life, affecting chiefly food, clothing, and rent, leading in the autumn to bitter complaint and to numerous strikes for higher wages, notably on the railways;
(3) Along with reviving trade, a speculation of great magnitude on the Stock Exchange, ascribed to the initiative of very powerful finance houses, and converging in a most peculiar way on United States Steel common shares, whose dividend was twice advanced, notwithstanding the fact that quarterly earnings had not recovered to the magnitude of 1906 or 1907, when the dividend had been maintained at the old rate;
(4) Largely as a result of the tying-up of capital in this speculation, severe autumn strain on bank reserves, turning a New York surplus of $34,000,000 on July 10 into one of only $1,600,000 on October 2, driving Wall Street to probably unprecedented borrowings from interior banks and from London, which latter market, under the influence of the Bank of England, threw back great amounts of these New York loans during October;
"(5) Call money rates kept down by such expedients, 6 per cent. being the maximum up to the two closing days of December;
(6) a wheat corner in June, in the course of which the New York cash price rose to $1.51 in June, the highest price since the Leiter corner of 1898, followed by a new wheat crop unsurpassed in magnitude except for 1901, yet with high prices continued in later autumn, despite an abundant crop in Europe also;
(7) A very short crop of cotton, driving the price from 9½ cents a pound, early in the year, to 16 cents in December, the latter being the highest December price since paper inflation days, and less than one cent below the highest price in the corner of 1904;
(8) Import of foreign merchandise wholly unparalleled for magnitude in our history, causing, in June, July, and August, an excess of imports over exports for the first time since 1897, and resulting, in the eleven first months of the year, in a total excess of exports over imports $340,000,000 less than in 1908, and very much the smallest of any year since 1897;
(9) As a partial consequence, the largest export of gold of any year in the country’s history, and the largest net export except for 1894 and the paper money days.
"The prolonged tariff debate in Congress, which high financial authority declared would hold back financial activity, but which gave no evidence of doing so, can hardly be classed as a fundamental influence of the year. Whether Mr. Harriman’s death in September, with the resultant realignment of forces in high finance, deserves to be so classed, is a question which can hardly be passed upon as yet."
FINANCE AND TRADE: America: Proposal of an International American Bank.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
FINANCE AND TRADE: Asia; A. D. 1909. Disturbance of Trade by the Fall in Silver Exchange.
The following is a Press telegram from Ottawa, Canada, June 23, 1909:
"The serious check to American exports to the Orient resulting from the great fall in the silver exchanges last year is attracting increasing attention on the Pacific Coast. A League which describes itself as the Fair Exchange league has been organized in Ottawa to keep the issues before the Dominion parliament. It advocates the adoption of the Goschen plan of 1891 jointly by the British empire and the United States with open mints in India as before 1893. The new movement has secured a qualified endorsement from J. J. Hill of the Great Northern railway. Mr. Hill says: ‘We must await the proposals of the monetary commission at Washington. The silver problem is full of difficulties. I wish it were possible to ignore it. But our consuls in Asia warn us that at the present rate of silver exchange Asia has ceased to import our wheat or flour or lumber; that the Shanghai merchants who eighteen months since bought the sovereign or five gold dollars with five taels, must now pay near eight taels; the result is disaster; he no longer buys.’"
FINANCE AND TRADE: British Empire: A. D. 1909. Imperial Congress of Chambers of Commerce.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (SEPTEMBER).
FINANCE AND TRADE: England: A. D. 1909. The Budget of Mr. Lloyd-George.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
{266}
FINANCE AND TRADE: Germany: A. D. 1901-1902. Industrial Crisis and Period of Depression.
The extraordinary industrial development of Germany between 1895 and 1900 had its usual sequel in a sudden collapse, followed by a period of depression and slow return to productive activity. According to Dr. Braun, writing in the _Yale Review_ of May, 1902, "the cause of the crisis lay undoubtedly in extreme overproduction, which had continued for a long time without its significance having been discovered by any one. Enormous quantities of commodities had been accumulated, numberless new industrial undertakings had come into being, or were about to be started, and every one was counting on further development of production by leaps and bounds. But a feeling of uncertainty, which should pass into a crisis, was bound to arise the moment certain unhealthy conditions of German economic life, which had been covered up during the period of prosperity, made their appearance.
"The conditions which did arouse this widespread feeling in German capitalistic circles lay far from the industrial market itself. Great losses suddenly appeared in the field of mortgage investments, whose securities had been accepted by the public as, next to government bonds, the safest form of investment, and the freest from speculation. These developments caused a panic among the investing public. This feeling of panic began, according to my view, at the time when the authorities found themselves forced to arrest two directors of the Pomeranian Mortgage Bank (Pommersche Hypothekenbank), who occupied the highest social position. … The extraordinary result of the action of the authorities against the leaders of certain mortgage banks is explained only by the facts that at the end of 1900, six and two-third billion marks of mortgage debentures were in circulation, and that within ten years the amount invested in such debentures had increased by three billion marks. The great majority of the small and middle-class capitalists, who wished to invest their money in safe securities, had put it into mortgage debentures of this kind. The greatest confidence had been placed in them, and now, for the first time, the eyes of the public were open to the fact that great losses could also ensue from such investments. The five principal offending banks had at the end of 1900, 692,670,950 marks of mortgage debentures in circulation. Every one had invested in these, from the smallest capitalist to the German Empress. The public and pretentious piety of the directors of the Prussian Mortgage Stock Bank, who were later placed under arrest, had induced even church-building associations to place their money in these debentures."
"Then came the failure of the Dresdener Kreditanstalt, which, with a capital of 20,000,000 marks, had loaned a single industrial company, the Dresden Electrical Company, 9,000,000 marks; and this failure was followed by that of the famous Leipsic Bank, which had loaned 84,000,000 marks to a concern which had used up its own capital, and was paying fraudulent dividends of 50 per cent. These two failures frightened the public into a general withdrawal of deposits from banks of every class."
FINANCE AND TRADE: Japan: A. D. 1909. State of the War Debt and its Payment.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1909 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
FINANCE AND TRADE: Mexico: A. D. 1905. Currency Reform. Cessation of Free Coinage of Silver.
See (in this Volume) MEXICO: A. D. 1904-1905.
FINANCE AND TRADE: United States: A. D. 1908. The Emergency Currency Act.
What is known as the Emergency Currency Act was passed by Congress in May, 1908, and received the approval of the President on the 30th of that month. It is a temporary measure, for exigencies that may repeat the monetary experience of 1907 before an adequate reform of the banking and currency system of the country is effected, and will expire by limitation on the 30th of June, 1914. It does not disturb the present National bank note currency of the country, based on Government bonds, but provides a means by which an additional Volume, amounting to a total of $500,000,000, if necessary, may be issued by the National banks in case of a currency stringency.
There are two ways in which emergency circulation may be issued. A bank may make an application through the Currency Association of which it is a member, or, where State and municipal bonds are offered as security, the application may be made directly. A Currency Association may be formed by ten or more banks having an aggregate capital and surplus of at least $5,000,000. Only one may be formed in any city, and no bank may belong to more than one. It must be formed by banks located in territory as contiguous as convenient.
All applications for emergency currency are to be passed upon by the Secretary of the Treasury after recommendation by the Comptroller of the Currency. The Secretary will also determine whether business conditions in the locality warrant the issuance of such circulation. The distribution of the notes is likewise left to him. Where application is made through an Association, the securities are deposited with it; where a direct application is made, they are deposited with the Treasurer or any Assistant Treasurer of the United States. All the members composing an Association are jointly and severally liable to the United States for the redemption of all emergency circulation taken out by its members.
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1908. Banking and Currency Questions in the Party Platforms.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1909. The "Wall Street Investigation." Report on the Operations of the Stock Exchange and other Exchanges of New York City.
In December, 1908, a Special Committee of nine experienced gentlemen, having Mr. Horace White for its chairman, was appointed by Governor Hughes, of the State of New York, to investigate and report "what changes, if any, are advisable in the laws of the State bearing upon speculation in securities and commodities, or relating to the protection of investors, or with regard to the instrumentalities and organizations used in dealings in securities and commodities which are the subject of speculation." On the 7th of the following June the Committee submitted to the Governor an extended report, describing and discussing the organizations, the instrumentalities and the methods employed in the dealings with which their inquiry had to do. The following excerpts from this important report (known commonly as the "report on Wall Street") may suffice, perhaps, to convey the main matters of information afforded by it and the more valuable conclusions at which the Committee arrived:
{267}
"In law, speculation becomes gambling when the trading which it involves does not lead, and is not intended to lead, to the actual passing from hand to hand of the property that is dealt in. … The rules of all the exchanges forbid gambling as defined by this opinion [of the New York Court of Appeals, case of Hurd vs. Taylor, 181 New York 231; but they make so easy a technical delivery of the property contracted for, that the practical effect of much speculation, in point of form legitimate, is not greatly different from that of gambling. Contracts to buy may be privately offset by contracts to sell. The offsetting may be done, in a systematic way, by clearing houses, or by ‘ring settlements.’ Where deliveries are actually made, property may be temporarily borrowed for the purpose. In these ways, speculation which has the legal traits of legitimate dealing may go on almost as freely as mere wagering, and may have most of the pecuniary and immoral effects of gambling on a large scale.
"A real distinction exists between speculation which is carried on by persons of means and experience, and based on an intelligent forecast, and that which is carried on by persons without these qualifications. The former is closely connected with regular business. While not unaccompanied by waste and loss, this speculation accomplishes an amount of good which offsets much of its cost. The latter does but a small amount of good and an almost incalculable amount of evil. In its nature it is in the same class with gambling upon the race-track or at the roulette table, but is practised on a vastly larger scale. Its ramifications extend to all parts of the country. It involves a practical certainty of loss to those who engage in it.
"The problem, wherever speculation is strongly rooted, is to eliminate that which is wasteful and morally destructive, while retaining and allowing free play to that which is beneficial. The difficulty in the solution of the problem lies in the practical impossibility of distinguishing what is virtually gambling from legitimate speculation. The most fruitful policy will be found in measures which will lessen speculation by persons not qualified to engage in it. In carrying out such a policy exchanges can accomplish more than legislatures. …
"The New York Stock Exchange is a voluntary association, limited to 1,100 members, of whom about 700 are active, some of them residents of other cities. Memberships are sold for about $80,000. The Exchange as such does no business, merely providing facilities to members and regulating their conduct. The governing power is in an elected committee of forty members and is plenary in scope. The business transacted on the floor is the purchase and sale of stocks and bonds of corporations and governments. Practically all transactions must be completed by delivery and payment on the following day. The mechanism of the Exchange, provided by its constitution and rules, is the evolution of more than a century. …
"The Volume of transactions indicates that the Exchange is to-day probably the most important financial institution in the world. In the past decade the average annual sales of shares have been 196,500,000 at prices involving an annual average turnover of nearly $15,500,000,000; bond transactions averaged about $800,000,000. This enormous business affects the financial and credit interests of the country in so large a measure that its proper regulation is a matter of transcendent importance. While radical changes in the mechanism, which is now so nicely adjusted that the transactions are carried on with the minimum of friction, might prove disastrous to the whole country, nevertheless measures should be adopted to correct existing abuses.
"It is unquestionable that only a small part of the transactions upon the Exchange is of an investment character; a substantial part may be characterized as virtually gambling. Yet we are unable to see how the State could distinguish by law between proper and improper transactions, since the forms and the mechanisms used are identical. Rigid statutes directed against the latter would seriously interfere with the former. The experience of Germany with similar legislation is illuminating.
See (in this Volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1908.
But the Exchange, with the plenary power over members and their operations, could provide correctives, as we shall show.
"Purchasing securities on margin is as legitimate a transaction as a purchase of any other property in which part payment is deferred. We therefore see no reason whatsoever for recommending the radical change suggested, that margin trading be prohibited. … In so far as losses are due to insufficient margins, they would be materially reduced if the customary percentage of margins were increased. The amount of margin which a broker requires from a speculative buyer of stocks depends, in each case, on the credit of the buyer; and the amount of credit which one person may extend to another is a dangerous subject on which to legislate. Upon the other hand, a rule made by the Exchange could safely deal with the prevalent rate of margins required from customers. In preference, therefore, to recommending legislation, we urge upon all brokers to discourage speculation upon small margins and upon the Exchange to use its influence, and, if necessary, its power, to prevent members from soliciting and generally accepting business on a less margin than 20 per cent.
"‘Pyramiding,’ which is the use of paper profits in stock transactions as a margin for further commitments, should be discouraged. The practice tends to produce more extreme fluctuations and more rapid wiping out of margins. If the stock brokers and the banks would make it a rule to value securities for the purpose of margin or collateral, not at the current price of the moment, but at the average price of, say, the previous two or three months (provided that such average price were not higher than the price of the moment), the dangers of pyramiding would be largely prevented.
"We have been strongly urged to advise the prohibition or limitation of short sales, not only on the theory that it is wrong to agree to sell what one does not possess, but that such sales reduce the market price of the securities involved. {268} We do not think that it is wrong to agree to sell something that one does not now possess, but expects to obtain later. Contracts and agreements to sell, and deliver in the future, property which one does not possess at the time of the contract, are common in all kinds of business. The man who has ‘sold short’ must some day buy in order to return the stock which he has borrowed to make the short sale. Short-sellers endeavor to select times when prices seem high in order to sell, and times when prices seem low in order to buy, their action in both cases serving to lessen advances and diminish declines of price. In other words, short-selling tends to produce steadiness in prices, which is an advantage to the community. No other means of restraining unwarranted marking up and down of prices has been suggested to us. …
"A subject to which we have devoted much time and thought is that of the manipulation of prices by large interests. This falls into two general classes:
(1.) That which is resorted to for the purpose of making a market for issues of new securities.
(2.) That which is designed to serve merely speculative purposes in the endeavor to make a profit as the result of fluctuations which have been planned in advance.
The first kind of manipulation has certain advantages, and when not accompanied by ‘matched orders' is unobjectionable _per se_. …
"The second kind of manipulation mentioned is undoubtedly open to serious criticism. It has for its object either the creation of high prices for particular stocks, in order to draw in the public as buyers and to unload upon them the holdings of the operators, or to depress the prices and induce the public to sell. There have been instances of gross and unjustifiable manipulation of securities, as in the case of American Ice stock. While we have been unable to discover any complete remedy short of abolishing the Stock Exchange itself, we are convinced that the Exchange can prevent the worst forms of this evil by exercising its influence and authority over the members to prevent them. When continued manipulation exists it is patent to experienced observers.
"In the foregoing discussion we have confined ourselves to _bona-fide_ sales. So far as manipulation of either class is based upon fictitious or so-called ‘wash sales’ it is open to the severest condemnation, and should be prevented by all possible means. These fictitious sales are forbidden by the rules of all the regular exchanges, and are not enforceable at law. They are less frequent than many persons suppose. … There is, however, another class of transactions called ‘matched orders,’ which differ materially from those already mentioned, in that they are actual and enforceable contracts. We refer to that class of transactions, engineered by some manipulator, who sends a number of orders simultaneously to different brokers, some to buy and some to sell. These brokers, without knowing that other brokers have countervailing orders from the same principal, execute their orders upon the floor of the Exchange, and the transactions become binding contracts; they cause an appearance of activity in a certain security which is unreal. Since they are legal and binding, we find a difficulty in suggesting a legislative remedy. But where the activities of two or more brokers in a certain securities become so extreme as to indicate manipulation rather than genuine transactions, the officers of the Exchange would be remiss unless they exercised their influence and authority upon such members. …
"The subject of corners in the stock market has engaged our attention. The Stock Exchange might properly adopt a rule providing that the governors shall have power to decide when a corner exists and to fix a settlement price, so as to relieve innocent persons from the injury or ruin which may result therefrom. The mere existence of such a rule would tend to prevent corners."
Speaking in a general way, it may be said that the Committee holds the directorate of the Stock Exchange responsible for evils connected with the operations that are centralized by it. "It has almost unlimited power over the conduct of its members," says the report, "and it can subject them to instant discipline for wrongdoing." As a voluntary organization it is more free in the exercise of this power than it would be if incorporated and brought under the authority and supervision of the State and the process of the courts. Hence the Committee refrains from advising the incorporation of the Exchange; but it does so only on the assumption that it "will in the future take full advantage of the powers conferred upon it by its voluntary organization." In the past it has failed to do so.
At the same time, the Committee corrects an erroneous public notion that Wall Street and the Stock Exchange are one and the same thing. "An investigation was made of the transactions on the Exchange for a given day, when the sales were 1,500,000 shares. The returns showed that on that day 52 per cent. of the total transactions on the Exchange apparently originated in New York city, and 48 per cent. in other localities."
The operations of the various other trading exchanges in New York,—the Consolidated Stock Exchange, "the Curb," so called, and the several "commodity exchanges," where dealings in produce, cotton, coffee, etc., are centered,—are discussed in the report, with disapproval of some. The abuses which find their opportunity in the unorganized Curb market,—carried on within a roped-off section of Broad Street,—are set forth with distinctness, and are traced clearly to the tolerance and encouragement afforded to them by the Stock Exchange. "About 85 per cent, of the business of the Curb," says the report, "comes through the offices of members of the New York Stock Exchange, but a provision of the constitution of that Exchange prohibits its members from becoming members of, or dealing on, any other _organized_ Stock Exchange in New York. Accordingly, operators on the curb market have not attempted to form an organization. The attitude of the Stock Exchange is therefore largely responsible for the existence of such abuses as result from the want of organization of the curb market. The brokers dealing on the latter do not wish to lose their best customers, and hence they submit to these irregularities and inconveniences. Some of the members of the Exchange dealing on the curb have apparently been satisfied with the prevailing conditions, and in their own selfish interests have maintained an attitude of indifference toward abuses. We are informed that some of the most flagrant cases of discreditable enterprises finding dealings on the curb were promoted by members of the New York Stock Exchange. The present apparent attitude of the Exchange toward the curb seems to us clearly inconsistent with its moral obligations to the community at large."
{269}
On the much debated question, whether dealing in "futures,"—the selling of agricultural products for future delivery,—should be prohibited or otherwise interfered with, the report of the Committee is strongly in favor of letting it alone. It says, "The subject was exhaustively considered by the Industrial Commission of Congress which in 1901 made an elaborate report (Volume VI.), showing that selling for future delivery, based upon a forecast of future conditions of supply and demand, is an indispensable part of the world’s commercial machinery, by which prices are, as far as possible, equalized throughout the year to the advantage of both producer and consumer. The subject is also treated with clearness and impartiality in the Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, in an article on ‘Speculation and Farm Prices’; where it is shown that since the yearly supply of wheat, for example, matures within a comparatively short period of time, somebody must handle and store the great bulk of it during the interval between production and consumption. Otherwise the price will be unduly depressed at the end of one harvest and correspondingly advanced before the beginning of another. Buying for future delivery causes advances in prices; selling short tends to restrain inordinate advances. In each case there must be a buyer and a seller, and the interaction of their trading steadies prices. Speculation thus brings into the market a distinct class of people possessing capital and special training who assume the risks of holding and distributing the proceeds of the crops from one season to another with the minimum of cost to producer and consumer."
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1909-1910. The "Central Bank" Question.
In Boston, at the outset of President Taft's tour of the country in the fall of 1909, he made a speech on financial subjects which touched the old question of the need in the country of a Central Bank of Issue, as an instrument for the automatic or natural regulation of its currency, in quantity and distribution. This gave the opening to a revival of discussions which have been seldom heard since Jackson’s time. A clear, succinct statement of the banking conditions which have revived this question, with explanations of what it involves, appears in the following, borrowed from a monthly financial letter sent out in November by the National City Bank of Chicago:
"The creation of a Central Bank of Issue as a cure for the defects of our financial system is of such importance that a brief review of the proposition may be of interest to our clients:
"The business of banking is probably as sound in this country as in any other. Our individual banks are, as a rule, prudently, honestly and capably managed. During normal times they deserve and enjoy the confidence of the public which they efficiently serve. Yet only two years ago they practically suspended because the system—that is the relation of one bank to all the others—had collapsed. This occurred while there was more gold in the country than existed in several of the other leading commercial nations combined, and while nearly all of the twenty or more thousand banks in the United States were sound, solvent, and in normal condition. With over $900,000,000 of gold in the United States Treasury, and several hundred millions more in the country, we imported at great cost about $100,000,000 chiefly from the coffers of the Bank of England, which itself only held $105,000,000.
"The loss on investments and to general business by such a panic as that of 1907 is beyond computation. When we consider that we have had several such panics within the memory of living men, and that other and poorer countries possess the means of avoiding such conditions, we naturally ask what is wrong or lacking in our financial system as compared to theirs?
"In times of trouble our reserves scatter. Theirs are massed. Our currency is rigid and cannot be quickly expanded to meet an emergency. Their currency is capable of instantaneous expansion. Our chief gold reserves are in the United States Treasury unavailable as a basis for such expansion. Their reserves are in great central banks—immediately available for currency expansion. Besides, under our national banking system, a bank in a non-reserve city with deposits of, say $1,000,000, keeps six per cent, or $60,000 in its own vault, and nine per cent, or $90,000, to its credit with a reserve city bank. In the reserve city bank, however, the $90,000 is merely a deposit against which it keeps an actual reserve of about $20,000. When trouble comes, therefore, and the bank in the non-reserve city decides to increase its cash reserves from six to eight per cent it calls upon its reserve agent for $20,000 cash, and when the reserve city bank has forwarded that amount, it has parted with all the actual reserve it has belonging to the non-reserve city bank, and it still has a deposit liability on its books of $70,000 against which it holds no reserve whatever.
"As it is a very natural and prudent thing for banks in non-reserve cities to increase their cash reserves by at least two per cent when trouble threatens, nearly all try to do so at the same time, and the result is that the threatened trouble becomes a reality. In short, when financial trouble threatens in any other great country the _system_ provides relief and the danger is avoided, whereas, unfortunately, with us every step we take increases the trouble and helps it along until it is beyond control.
"Financial stringency existed in all the leading countries in 1907. Suspension of specie-payments and actual panic occurred only in the United States. They stopped abruptly at our borders, and Canada and even Mexico knew nothing of them. Manifestly, we need something! There is little difference of opinion on that score. But when we begin to discuss the remedy we have a wide divergence of views.
"Many favor asset or credit currency similar to that prevailing in Canada. The Canadian System of asset currency is excellent when joined to the branch banking system. But it is felt that it would be almost impossible to apply it to a system containing thousands of individual banks. The difficulty is that of providing adequate redemption facilities, without which the danger of currency inflation could scarcely be avoided. Several schemes to meet this difficulty have been suggested, but the best of them seem rather unwieldy.
{270}
"The proposal which seems to be gaining most ground is to establish a great semi-government bank to be added to our present system. To this bank would be transferred at once the government deposits now in national banks, and later a large part of the reserves of the banks in the central reserve, and possibly also the reserve cities. Like everything else, the bank would have to be an evolution. Years would pass before it would work into its proper position and exercise its full powers. Gradually, it is hoped, the United States Treasury could be done away with, and the government taken out of the banking business. Then all government funds would be deposited with the Central Bank. Its branches would take the place of our Sub-Treasuries. It would be a bank of banks, where other banks could re-discount their bills, or borrow on securities, receiving therefor currency to be issued by the Central Bank. This currency would be partly secured by a gold reserve, and partly by the general assets of the bank.
"If the $900,000,000 gold in the United States Treasury in 1907, held against an equal amount of notes, had been in a Central Bank it would have formed a sufficient basis for the issue of an additional $900,000,000 of currency, for fifty per cent reserve against currency would be ample. For such additional issue the Central Bank would, of course, receive acceptable banking assets. A far smaller amount, however, than $900,000,000 would have averted the panic. It seems clear that such an institution would provide the elasticity to our currency which we so much need, not only in times of stress, but every crop-moving season.
"There are many details which would require careful study, but to many competent to judge, the Central Bank idea seems to be the correct solution of the difficulty. The fact that all the other important countries of the world have adopted it ought to give it weight. Even little Switzerland came to it four years ago, and Japan, after adopting a system copied from ours, has established a Central Bank patterned after the Imperial Bank of Germany.
"Most of the objections raised seem to be largely based on sentiment rather than on argument. It is said to be ‘un-American,’ or that it would be ‘used by Wall Street.’ or that ‘it would get into politics.’ It would seem to us that if the system is the best, it should not be ‘un-American’ to adopt it, and that an illegitimate use of it by ‘ Wall Street’ could easily be guarded against in its organization. To say that we cannot trust our government to properly use, and not abuse, the powers of a Central Bank is to say that it is inferior to the governments of Europe which have wisely used such powers for generations.
"There seems some danger that the bank would not pay unless it entered into competition with existing banks for regular commercial business; but we must remember that Central Banks are not expected to earn large dividends.
"We predict a long campaign of discussion before the right course appears clear to the American people; but it seems to us that the arguments advanced for a Central Bank are well worthy of the most earnest study."
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1909-1910. Powerful Combination of Banking Interests by J. P. Morgan & Co.
Early in December, 1909, the powerful banking house of J. P. Morgan & Co. obtained control of the Guaranty Trust Company and the Equitable Life Assurance Company, which latter controls the Equitable and Mercantile trust companies. In the former case it purchased the holding of the Harriman estate, and in the latter that of Thomas Ryan. At the beginning of the following month, by another deal with Mr. Ryan, the same firm acquired the Morton and the Fifth Avenue trust companies. The combined assets of the Guaranty, Morton, and Fifth Avenue trust companies were reported to be $259,000,000. Joined to the vast resources of the Equitable Life Assurance Company and to those previously controlled by the Morgan Company, the financial combination seems overpowering.
FINANCE AND TRADE.
See,(in this Volume), TARIFFS, AND COMBINATIONS.
----------FINANCE AND TRADE: End--------
FINLAND: A. D. 1901. The Russianizing of the Finnish Army. Resistance to the Violation of Constitutional Rights. Despotic measures of the Tsar. M. de Plehve’s defence.
The shameful overthrow, in 1899, by the present Tsar of Russia, of the ancient constitution of Finland, which had preserved its distinct nationality ever since it came, in 1809, under the Russian crown, is related in Volume VI. of this work. Among the measures then undertaken for Russianizing Finland—reducing it substantially to the status of a Russian province—the most serious was the practical incorporation of the Finnish army with the Russian, the law for accomplishing which had not been fully carried through when the account of events in Volume VI. was closed. It was opposed very strenuously by M. Witte, then rising to influence in the councils of the Tsar, and seemed not unlikely to be put aside. But the worse influences prevailed in the end over the wiser, and the proposed measure became law on the 11th of July, 1901. It placed all Finnish troops under the orders of the Russian commander in Finland, authorized the putting of Finnish conscripts into the Russian regiments stationed in Finland, and subjected Finnish regiments to service, when required, outside of Finland, from which service they had been constitutionally exempt hitherto.
The resistance to this gross violation of time-honored rights was universal and determined. Conscripts refused to answer the call to military service, subjecting themselves to the penalties for desertion, and practically the whole population stood ready to protect them. Extensive movements of emigration to America and elsewhere were begun. At the same time the Tsar’s authority, as the common sovereign of Finland and Russia, was used in many ways as autocratically in his constitutional realm as in that where his absolutism knew no bounds. The powers of the Russian Governor-General of Finland were enlarged; the Finnish archives were removed to St. Petersburg; Cossacks were sent into the abused country with their knouts to quell resistance to the army law; but the resistance went on, taking presently a more passive form. Communes refused to elect the conscription boards which the law prescribed for carrying out the levy of recruits, and heavy fines were imposed on them without effect. In November, 1902, a convention of delegates from all parts of Finland, composed largely of peasants and workmen, resolved to "continue everywhere, unswervingly, and until legal conditions are restored to the country, the passive resistance against all measures conflicting with, or calculated to abolish, our fundamental laws."
{271}
An elaborate defence of these Russianizing measures in Finland was addressed, in August, 1903, by the Russian Minister of the Interior, M. dePlehve, to Mr. W. T. Stead, editor of the _English Review of Reviews_, by way of reply to an "open letter" to himself on the subject, by Mr. Stead, published in the _Review_ of that month. Concerning the military law, M. Plehve wrote:
"This law, in its application to the new conscription regulations, has alleviated the condition of the population of Finland. Contrary to the information you have received, the military burden laid on the population of the land has not been increased by 5,000 recruits annually, but has been decreased from 2,000 men to 500 per annum, and latterly to 280. As you will see, there is in reality no opposition between the will of the Emperor of Russia as announced to Finland in 1899 and his generous initiative at The Hague Conference." At the end of a long exposition of the principles of Russian imperial policy, which left it far from clear, the Minister said: "I shall give the following answer to your entreaty to put an end to the present policy of Russia in Finland, which you are pleased to call the policy of General Bobrikoff. First of all, it is incorrect to connect the present course of Russian policy in Finland with the name of the present Governor-General of Finland alone, for, as regards the fundamental purpose of his labors, all the advisers and servants of his Imperial Majesty who have to do with the government of Finland are at one with him in their firm conviction that the measures now applied in Finland are called for by the pressing requirements of our state. With regard to the essence of the question, I repeat that in matters of government temporary phenomena should be distinguished from permanent ones. The incidental expression of Russian policy, necessitated by an open mutiny against the government in Finland, will, undoubtedly, be replaced by the former favor of the sovereign toward his Finnish subjects, as soon as peace is finally restored and the current of social life in that country assumes its normal course. Then, certainly, all repressive measures will be repealed. But the realization of the fundamental aim which the Russian Government has set itself in Finland,—i. e., the confirming in that land of the principle of imperial unity,—must continue, and it would be best of all if this end were attained with the trustful cooperation of local workers under the guidance of the sovereign to whom Divine Providence has committed the destinies of Russia and Finland."
FINLAND: A. D. 1904. Assassination of Governor-General Bobrikoff.
On the 15th of June, 1904, Governor-General Bobrikoff, who had been the executor of the Russianizing policy in Finland, and was hated accordingly, was shot by a Finnish member of the Parliamentary opposition.
FINLAND: A. D. 1905. Successful Revolt against the Russianizing Oppressions. The Tsar’s Concessions. Restoration of Ancient Liberties.
Taking advantage of the situation in Russia, which tied the hands of the Autocrat (see (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905), the Finns, by a sudden general rising, drove out the Russian officials in their country, took possession of the military posts and Government building, and forced the Governor, Prince John Obolenski, to send to the Tsar their demand for a restoration of their ancient constitutional rights which he had taken away (see, in Volume VI. of this work, FINLAND: A. D. 1898-1901). The helplessness to which their Russian master had been reduced was signified by the prompt amiability of his response, in successive manifestoes, the first of which bore the following command:
"By the grace of God, we, Nicholas II., etc., command the opening at Helsingfors, December 20, of an extraordinary Diet to consider the following questions.
"_First_. The proposals for the budget of 1906-1907, provisional taxes, and a loan for railway construction.
"_Second_. A bill providing, by a new fundamental law, a parliament for Finland on the basis of universal suffrage, with the establishment of the responsibility of the local authorities to the nation’s deputies.
"_Third_. Bills granting liberty of the press, of meeting, and of unions."
A subsequent manifesto announced:
"We have ordered the elaboration of bills reforming the fundamental laws for submission to the deputies of the nation, and we order the abrogation of the manifesto of February 15, 1899; the ukase of April 15, 1903, concerning measures for the maintenance of public order and tranquillity; the imperial ukase of November 23, 1903, according exceptional rights to the gendarmerie in the grand duchy; Article 12 of the ukase of July 13, 1902, on Finnish legislation; the ukase of September 21, 1902, on the reform of the Senate and the extension of powers of governors; the ukase of April 8, 1903, on instructions for the governor-general and the assistant governor of Finland; the law of July 25, 1901, on military service; the ukase of August 13, 1902, on the duties of civic officials in Finland; the ukase of August 27, 1902, on the resignation of administrative officials and judicial responsibility for offenses and crimes of officials, and the ukase of July 15, 1900, on meetings.
"We further order the Senate to proceed immediately with the revision of the other regulations enumerated in the petition, and we order the immediate suppression of the censorship.
"The Senate should prepare bills granting liberty of speech, of the press, of meeting, and of union; a national assembly on the basis of universal suffrage, and the responsibility of the local authorities as soon as possible, in order that the Diet may discuss them.
"We trust that the measures enumerated, being dictated by a desire to benefit Finland, will strengthen the ties uniting the Finnish nation to its sovereign."
An article quoted from a Danish magazine tells in a few words how the bloodless revolution was accomplished:
"The weapon used for the purpose of paralyzing the government was the general strike. It may be questioned to which class belongs the chief part of honor in this struggle. A marvelous unity characterized the whole movement. While post, telegraph, and railroad traffic was stopped the entire light supply was cut off. The strike extended even into the private kitchen, and this was one of the reasons which hastened the departure of the Russian officials. In the meantime the question was not only should Russian guns be directed on Helsingfors, but also should personal safety be maintained. That so few transgressions of the law occurred with the whole police force on strike is a splendid testimony for the Finnish people. The revolution in Finland stands hence as an unparalleled example of a popular upheaval."
{272}
FINLAND: A. D. 1906. Political Enfranchisement of Women.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
FINLAND: A. D. 1908-1909. Russian Measures for the Destruction of the Constitutional Autonomy of Finland.
The reactionary determinations of the Russian Government, since it mastered the revolutionary movements of 1905-1906, are revealed in nothing else more plainly than in its steady pursuance of measures to extinguish the degree of autonomy which belongs to Finland, under the constitution that was confirmed to its people by the Tsar Alexander I., after he had taken their country from the Swedish crown.
See, in Volume IV. of this work, SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
One of the most arbitrary of the early measures in this direction was the assumption by the Tsar, in June, 1908, of a right to confer on the Russian Council of Ministers certain powers of control over Finnish legislation. The protests of the Diet and Senate of Finland against this and other attacks on their constitutional rights led to a dissolution of the Diet, and the election of a new representative body, early in May, 1909. The election produced substantially the same popular representation in the new Diet that had characterized its predecessor, and its attitude toward the autocratic invasion of Finnish rights was the same. The Socialists received 79,447 votes. The party of the Old Finns which inclines to submissiveness polled a total of 52,396. The Constitutional parties, the Young Finns and the Swedes, received respectively 28,711 and 15,885 votes, while the Agrarian-Socialists got 13,648 and the Christian Workmen 6172. The Old Finns stand alone against the other parties.
Meantime, the Tsar, in sanctioning an Act of the previous Diet, after its dissolution, had done it in terms that were deemed contrary to the Constitution of Finland, and the Senate, which is composed of members appointed by the Tsar, petitioned him for a modification of them. His reply was a rebuke and a command that they promulgate the law, and thus accept his misconstruction of the Constitution. Thereupon the Vice-President of the Senate and four of its members resigned. The remaining five, pliant to the imperial will, voted with the presiding Governor-General for the promulgation of the law.
In the course of the next few months other demands were made on the Finns which even the imperial appointees of the Senate could not yield to. In October, an Imperial rescript decreed that military service legislation for Finland should be withdrawn from the competence of the Finnish Diet and transferred to the Imperial Legislature; and that until such legislation is enacted Finland should pay into the Russian exchequer an annual contribution of 10,000,000 marks ($2,000,000), to be increased gradually to 20,000.000 marks. This left the Finnish Diet no voice in the appropriation. The five members who had remained in the Senate when their four colleagues resigned now intimated their intention to withdraw. On the 14th of October the four vacant seats were filled by an appointment of naval and military officers who were said to be "technically Finnish citizens," but all of whom, save one, had spent their lives in Russia. A month later, November 17, a Press despatch from Helsingfors made the following announcement: "At an all-night session which ended to-day the Finnish Diet rejected the government bill providing for Finland’s contribution to the Russian military appropriation. A resolution was adopted requesting the Emperor to reintroduce the measure in a constitutional form. The dissolution of the Diet is expected. The Emperor has accepted the resignations of the Finnish Senators who refused to remain in office if the Russian demand for a big military appropriation by Finland was pressed." The expectation of another dissolution of the Diet by the Tsar, as the consequence of this action, was realized the next day.
Some months prior to this time a joint committee of Russians and Finns had been appointed to formulate rules or principles that should apply with authority in future to legislation for Finland. Agreement between the two constituents of this Russo-Finnish committee appears to have been impossible from the beginning. They were hopelessly opposed in their views of the relation existing between the constitutional Grand Duchy of Finland and the autocratic Empire of Russia, by virtue of their having a common sovereign. Toward the end of November their failure to come to any agreement was made known; and on the 22d of December a despatch from St. Petersburg announced that "the conclusion of the labours of the Russo-Finnish Commission, resulting in a perfunctory majority vote of the Russian members in favour of the reduction of the Finnish Constitution to a provincial autonomy, is deplored by most of the newspapers. The Finnish members apprehend a military dictatorship."
The St. Petersburg correspondent of _The Times_ had previously stated what the prescription of the Russian majority of the Committee would be. They maintain, he wrote, that "there never was a Constitution granted to Finland binding on Russia as the Sovereign Power, and that, therefore, a new order of procedure can be established independently of the Finnish authorities by an Act of legislation passed by the Russian Legislature alone. They have drawn up a list of matters to come under the new procedure. According to this list all legislation on such matters as the Russian language in Finland, the principles of Finnish administration, police, administration of justice, public education, formation of business companies and of associations, public meetings, Press, importation of foreign literature, Customs tariffs, literary and artistic copyright, monetary system, means of communication, including pilot and lighthouse service, and many other subjects, shall be enacted by the Imperial legislative organs. The Finnish Diet shall be entirely ignored in such matters, while there is a provision for some cases that the opinion of the Finnish Senate shall be taken.
"It is difficult to understand what legislative matters are to be left for the Finnish Diet to deal with; but it seems that the Russian members are not sure that they have covered the whole ground, for their project contains a clause to the effect that additions to their list may be made by means of Imperial legislation.
{273}
"It is proposed that Finland shall be represented in the Russian Duma by five members, one of whom shall be elected by Russian residents in Finland who are not Finnish citizens, whilst the Finnish Diet shall send one member to the Council of Empire."
The first movement, probably, on these new lines of imperial government for Finland, was that reported in a Reuter message from St. Petersburg, December 24, as follows:
"The Cabinet has approved new regulations whereby all documents issued by the Chancellery of the Governor-General of Finland shall be worded in Russian without a Finnish or Swedish translation."
FINLAND: A. D. 1910. Fresh Elections to the Finnish Diet. The Russian Duma assuming authority over Finland.
A new Diet, chosen at elections held early in February, 1910, is composed as follows: Old Finns, 42; Young Finns, 28; Swedish People’s party, 26; Social Democrats, 86; Agrarians, 17; Christian Labor party, 1.
Fifteen women were elected, nine of them by the Social Democrats.
Just as this matter goes into type, a despatch from St. Petersburg, March 30, 1910, announces the introduction of a bill in the Russian Duma assuming authority in that body over Finland.
FINSEN, Niels Ryberg.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
FIRE, Great calamities of.
See (in this Volume) BALTIMORE; CHICAGO; NEW YORK CITY; SAN FRANCISCO; OSAKA.
FISCAL REFORM, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain’s programme of.
See (in this Volume) England: A. D. 1903 (May-September).
FISCHER, Emil.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
FISHER, Andrew: Prime Minister of Australia.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRALIA; A. D. 1908, and 1909 (MAY-JUNE).
FISHERIES: Newfoundland.
See (in this Volume) NEWFOUNDLAND.
FISHES, FOOD: Convention for their Preservation and Propagation in the Waters contiguous to the United States and Canada.
See (in this Volume) FOOD FISHES.
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES: End of their Autonomy.
See (in this Volume) INDIANS, AMERICAN.
FLOODS.
See (in this Volume) CHINA; A. D. 1906-1907, and FRANCE: A. D. 1910.
FOLK, Joseph Wingate: Prosecutor of Municipal Thievery and Corruption in St. Louis. Governor of Missouri.
See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
FOOD FISHES: Convention respecting their Protection, Preservation, and Propagation in the Waters contiguous to the United States and Canada.
The following are the articles of a Convention negotiated at Washington and signed by Ambassador James Bryce, for the Government of Great Britain, and by Secretary Elihu Root, for that of the United States, on the 11th of April, 1908. Ratifications of the Convention were exchanged on the 4th of June:
"ARTICLE 1. The times, seasons, and methods of fishing in the waters contiguous to the United States and Canada as specified in Article 4 of this Convention, and the nets, engines, gear, apparatus, and appliances which may be used therein, shall be fixed and determined by uniform and common international regulations, restrictions, and provisions; and to that end the High Contracting Parties agree to appoint, within three months after this Convention is proclaimed, a Commission to be known as the International Fisheries Commission, consisting of one person named by each Government.
"ARTICLE 2. It shall be the duty of this International Fisheries Commission, within six months after being named, to prepare a system of uniform and common International Regulations for the protection and preservation of the food fishes in each of the waters prescribed in Article 4 of this Convention, which Regulations shall embrace close seasons, limitations as to the character, size, and manner of use of nets, engines, gear, apparatus, and other appliances; a uniform system of registry by each Government in waters where required for the more convenient regulation of commercial fishing by its own citizens or subjects within its own territorial waters or any part of such waters; an arrangement for concurrent measures for the propagation of fish; and such other provisions and measures as the Commission shall deem necessary.
"ARTICLE 3. The two Governments engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislation and executive action, with as little delay as possible, the Regulations, restrictions, and provisions with appropriate penalties for all breaches thereof; and the date when they shall be put into operation shall be fixed by the concurrent proclamations of the President of the United States and the Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada in Council.
"And it is further agreed that jurisdiction shall be exercised by either Government, as well over citizens or subjects of either party apprehended for violation of the Regulations in any of its own waters to which said Regulations apply, as over its own citizens or subjects found within its own jurisdiction who shall have violated said Regulations within the waters of the other party.
"ARTICLE 4. It is agreed that the waters within which the aforementioned Regulations are to be applied shall be as follows: (1) The territorial waters of Passamaquoddy Bay; (2) the St. John and St. Croix Rivers; (3) Lake Memphremagog: (4) Lake Champlain; (5) the St. Lawrence River, where the said River constitutes the International Boundary; (6) Lake Ontario; (7) the Niagara River; (8) Lake Erie; (9) the waters connecting Lake Erie and Lake Huron, including Lake St. Clair; (10) Lake Huron, excluding Georgian Bay but including North Channel; (11) St. Mary’s River and Lake Superior; (12) Rainy River and Rainy Lake; (13) Lake of the Woods; (14) the Strait of San Juan de Fuca, those parts of Washington Sound, the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound lying between the parallels of 48° 10' and 49° 20'; (15) and such other contiguous waters as may be recommended by the International Fisheries Commission and approved by the two Governments.
It is agreed on the part of Great Britain that the Canadian Government will protect by adequate regulations the food fishes frequenting the Fraser River.
"The two Governments engage to have prepared as soon as practicable charts of the waters described in this Article, with the International Boundary Line indicated thereon; and to establish such additional boundary monuments, buoys, and marks as may be recommended by the Commission.
{274}
"ARTICLE 5. The International Fisheries Commission shall continue in existence so long as this Convention shall be in force, and each Government shall have the power to fill, and shall fill from time to time, any vacancy which may occur in its representation on the Commission. Each Government shall pay its own Commissioner, and any joint expenses shall be paid by the two Governments in equal moieties.
"ARTICLE 6. The Regulations, restrictions, and provisions provided for in this Convention shall remain in force for a period of four years from the date of their executive promulgation, and thereafter until one year from the date when either the Government of Great Britain or of the United States shall give notice to the other of its desire for their revision; and immediately upon such notice being given the Commission shall proceed to make a revision thereof, which Revised Regulations, if adopted and promulgated by the President of the United States and the Governor-General of Canada in Council, shall remain in force for another period of four years and thereafter until one year from the date when a further notice of revision is given as above provided in this Article. It shall, however, be in the power of the two Governments, by joint or concurrent action upon the recommendation of the Commission, to make modifications at any time in the Regulations.
"ARTICLE 7. The present Convention shall be duly ratified by His Britannic Majesty and by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in Washington as soon as practicable."
FOOD LAWS.
See (in this Volume ) PUBLIC HEALTH: PURE FOOD LAWS.
FORESTS, Conservation of.
See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
FORMOSA: Earthquake in.
See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: FORMOSA: A. D. 1906.
FORMOSA: Japanese Dealing with the Opium Problem.
See (in this Volume) OPIUM PROBLEM.
FORTIS MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume) ITALY: A. D. 1905-1906.
FOSTER, John W.: On the American Violation of Treaties with China.
See (in this Volume ) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1908.
FOSTER, Volney W.: Delegate to Second International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
FOUNDATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
----------FRANCE: Start--------
FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1905. Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
FRANCE: A. D. 1896-1906. Encroachments of the French Algerian Boundary on Morocco.
See Morocco: A. D. 1896-1906.
FRANCE: A. D. 1900. Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink. Its Increase.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902. Purchase of Franchises and Property of the French Panama Canal Company by the United States.
See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902. Favored footing in Abyssinia. Railway Projects.
See (in this Volume) ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1902.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902. French Central Africa. Explorations. A Land-locked Empire.
See (in this Volume) AFRICA: FRENCH CENTRAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (April-October). Elections to the Chamber of Deputies. Resignation of Waldeck-Rousseau. Formation of a Radical Ministry under M. Combes. Enforcement of the Law of Associations. Closing of unauthorized schools.
The first ballot in elections to the Chamber of Deputies was cast on the 27th of April, producing 413 conclusive elections and leaving 178 to be decided by a second vote. The new Chamber met on the 1st of June, and elected for its president, M. Leon Bourgeois, by a vote of 303 against 267. On the following day M. Waldeck-Rousseau, who had been at the head of the Ministry for three years—an exceptional term of premiership in France—resigned, on the plea that his task was done. A new Radical Cabinet was then formed by M. Émile Combes, which announced a moderate programme on the 10th, and received the declared support of 312 members, against 116 in opposition and 149 who took neutral ground. Of the previous Cabinet, M. Delcassé retained the portfolio of Foreign Affairs and General Andre that of War. The session was short and little was done.
In the following months great excitement and much disorder in parts of the country, especially in Brittany, was caused by proceedings taken to enforce the law concerning Associations, passed in the previous year.
See in Volume VI. FRANCE: A. D. 1901.
Some religious orders—teaching orders and others—had refused or neglected to register themselves and obtain authorization, as required by the law, and these were now to be closed. In many cases there was resistance to the closing of the unauthorized schools. In a few cases there was a refusal by military officers to obey commands for the assistance of their soldiery in enforcing the law. Magistrates, too, opposed the government, and a majority of the councils in the departments of France withheld their support. Nevertheless the government proceeded firmly in the matter and the provisions of the law were carried out. When the Chambers were reconvened in October the burning subject came up for fierce discussion, and the attitude and acts of the Combes Ministry were approved in the Chamber of Deputies by 329 against 233.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (May). Courtesies at the unveiling of a Monument to Marshal de Rochambeau, at Washington.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902 (MAY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (October). Strikes in the Coal Mines and on the Docks at Marseilles.
See (in this Volume) Labor Organization: FRANCE: A. D. 1902.
FRANCE: A. D. 1902 (October). Treaty with Siam. Acquisition of more territory.
See (in this Volume) SIAM: A. D. 1902.
{275}
FRANCE: A. D. 1903. Elections to the Senate. Execution of the Associations Law. Closing of Schools and Houses of the Religious Orders. Resistance and Rioting encouraged by Magistrates. State Monopoly of Education established. Building new Schoolhouses.
Elections for a section of the Senate, occurring early in January, 1903, went favorably for the Government. M. Fallières was reëlected President of that body, while M. Bourgeois was seated again in the presiding chair of the lower Chamber. The Combes Ministry was strengthened in its hold of power by the continued agitation that attended the execution of the Associations Law as applied to the religious orders and brotherhoods.
See in Volume VI. of this work, FRANCE: A. D. 1901.
Its support was a shifting one, made up sometimes by one combination of the many party divisions in the Chambers and sometimes by another; but it did not fail throughout the year to find somewhere a majority that would not allow a political crisis to be brought on. Everywhere the closing of the schools and houses of the unauthorized associations was resisted with increasing determination, and the proceeding became too much retarded to satisfy the supporters of the law. Objection was raised to the separate dealing with questions of authorization for this and that order or congregation, and the Government was called upon to name at once to the Chambers the whole list of institutions which it would have authorizations refused to. In March this demand was acceded to, so far as concerned the male congregations, and a great debate, of a fortnight’s duration, in the Chamber of Deputies, resulted in the refusal of authorization to all the teaching, preaching, and contemplative orders, of Redemptorists, Capuchins, Benedictines, Dominicans, and Passionists. A few months later the same entire refusal of authorization to the teaching orders of women was voted, but by a diminished majority.
The Clericals, on their side, were as energetic as the parties of the Government, and were supported very generally by the magistracy of the country at large, which dealt so leniently with the resistance and rioting provoked by the enforcement of the law that the Government was left practically dependent on the army and the police. The army, too, was a doubtful instrument of authority in many cases, numerous officers of all grades resigning to escape the repugnant mandate of law. The most threatening situation arose in Brittany, consequent on the inauguration of a monument to Renan, which the Catholics regarded as an insult to the Church.
One final step in the secularizing of education in France was taken late in the year, by the passing of a bill which practically established a State monopoly of education, by repealing a law of 1850 that abolished such monopoly. By the new law all members of any religious order, authorized or unauthorized, were forbidden to engage in teaching.
The extent to which the schools of the religious congregations were being closed involved a great expenditure for building new schoolhouses, and the Government had difficulty in passing an Act which laid the cost of this provision on the communes, instead of accepting it for the state at large. It carried the Act, however, notwithstanding the opposition of M. Waldeck-Rousseau.
FRANCE: A. D. 1904. Rivalry with England in the Persian Gulf.
See (in this Volume) PERSIA: A. D. 1904.
FRANCE: A. D. 1904 (April). The Agreements of the Entente Cordiale with England.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904 (APRIL).
FRANCE: A. D. 1904 (June-July). Groundless charges against the Premier.
A great public scandal was raised in June by charges against the Premier, M. Combes, that he had tried to force the Chartreux monks to buy the right of remaining in France. Investigation showed that bold swindlers had attempted to obtain money from the monks on the pretence of being able to buy such permission for them. As the result of the investigation the President of the Council and his colleagues were vindicated by an almost unanimous vote of the Chamber of Deputies.
FRANCE: A. D. 1904-1909. General Consequences in Europe of the Weakening of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1905. Action with other Powers in forcing Financial Reforms in Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906. The Separation of Church and State. Preceding Contentions. Measures and Proceedings of the Separation, as recounted by writers of each Party.
The separation of Church and State in France involved the nullification of the Concordat, negotiated by Napoleon I. with Pope Pius VII. in 1802, and of what are known as the Organic Statutes, promulgated by the French Government at the same time.
See (in Volume IV. of this work) PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
The former was in the nature of a treaty; the latter was not. The French Government claimed rights under both; the Roman Church acknowledged no force in the Statutes that could be binding on itself. This difference, which entered into much of the controversy preceding the measures taken by the Government to separate the State from the Church, is explained in the first quotation below,—following which, two accounts are given of some among those controversies, and of the proceedings connected with the adoption and execution of the Act of Separation,—one account written from the view-point of the Government and the other from that of the Church:
"The Concordat consists of a preamble and seventeen statutes. It is a reciprocal contract between the temporal and spiritual powers, and is therefore at the same time State law and Church law. The preamble states that the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion is that of the great majority of the French people; it does not say that it is ‘the religion of France,’ as the Holy See would have wished, and consequently it does not restore to the Catholic religion its former character of being a State religion. After establishing a new distribution of the French dioceses, it directs that the bishops shall be ‘nominated’ by the Government and ‘installed’ by the Pope. The alienation of ecclesiastical property, effected by the Revolution, is definitely sanctioned. In return the Government undertakes, as had already been done by the Constituent Assembly, to secure ‘a reasonable allowance to the bishops and curés, whose dioceses and parishes will be included in the new arrangement,’ and to take ‘measures to allow French Catholics to make foundations in favour of churches if they wish.’
{276}
"As regards the Organic Statutes, promulgated at the same time as the Concordat, 18th April, 1802, they proclaim that no bull, pastoral letter, or writing of any kind from the Holy See shall be published in France without the authority of the Government; no council, general or special, shall be held without this authority. There must be no other delegate from Rome in France besides the Nuncio, the official representative of the Sovereign Pontiff. Any infraction on the part of the clergy of the provisions either of the Concordat or of French law is referred to the Council of State, who must decide if there has been any abuse. The Organic Statutes were equally concerned with questions relating to discipline, doctrine, and even dogma—which are purely spiritual questions. They therefore not only upheld the Declaration of 1682 as a declaration of the principles of the Gallican Church, but also expected all the professors to teach it in the seminaries. According to the Concordat, bishops had a right to appoint curés; the Organic Statutes obliged them to obtain the approval of the Government for their appointments.
"Although the Organic Statutes are, with the Concordat, part of one and the same State law, they must not be considered to be entirely on the same footing. The Concordat concluded between the two powers binds them together; the Organic Statutes, an exclusive product of the French Government, never received the sanction of the Papal authority. They were, on the contrary, a source of further quarrels with the Roman Court. Even in our days, they frequently lead to conflict, the representatives of the Church having refused, on various occasions, to recognise the validity of decisions made in virtue of these Statutes by the French Government."
_Jules Legrand, Church and State in France (Contemporary Review, May, 1901)._
FRANCE: Measures and Proceedings of the Separation as recounted by its Advocates.
"The action of the Republic in suppressing the religious orders had produced strained relations between it and the Vatican. This was intensified by the ‘nominavit nobis’ controversy. In the Bulls instituting some bishops whom the President had nominated, and which had to have the sanction of the Government before they could be published and be valid in France, the Vatican had inserted the word ‘nobis,’ implying that the President had merely nominated the bishop to the Pope for appointment and that the appointment was really in the hands of the Pope. The French Government, under the guidance of M. Combes, the Premier and Minister of Public Worship, insisted that this word must be removed before the bull was sanctioned, and as both sides refused to yield no bishop was instituted. Relations were still further strained by the visit of the President to the King of Italy. … To visit the King was to insult the Pope by disregarding the protest made by him against the occupation of Rome. President Loubet was the first Roman Catholic ruler who ventured to disregard the feelings and protests of the Pope. From the 24th to the 28th April, 1904, M. Loubet was the guest of King Victor Emmanuel, and gave no intimation to the Pope of his intention to visit Rome, and did not include a visit to the Vatican in his programme. On the 28th of April, Cardinal Merry del Val sent to the representatives of the Curia at the Courts of all the Roman Catholic powers in the world, to be communicated to the Governments to which they were commissioned, a protest against the action of the French Government. … The French Government replied by recalling its ambassador from the Vatican and breaking off diplomatic relations with the Pope.
"In the summer of the same year the friction between the French Government and the Vatican was increased by the cases of the bishops of Laval and Dijon. Bishop Geay of Laval, in his opening discourse in his cathedral, had proclaimed his adherence to the Republic and his desire to be the shepherd of all his flock. He denounced Orleanism and refused to support reactionaries at the elections. … He was summoned to appear at Rome. He submitted the summons to the Government, as he was required by the Organic Articles to do, and he was refused permission to leave his diocese. Subsequently, under threats of excommunication, he went, and was immediately informed by the Minister of Public Worship that his salary was stopped from the day he left his diocese without permission. A similar summons to Mgr. Le Nordez, Bishop of Dijon, led to similar results. …
"In the month of October, 1904, M. Combes, replying to several interpellations addressed to the Government, reviewed the history of the relations of the Vatican to the Republic since its foundation in 1870, and showed that there had been a continuous disregard of the Concordat and of the Organic Articles by the Vatican, and that clericalism had been the most inveterate enemy of the Republic. He showed that no stipulations could safeguard the rights of the State, which were denied by the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The confidence of the Chamber was expressed by a vote of 548 to 88. In November he introduced a Bill for the separation of Church and State, which was referred to a Commission, by which it was adopted on the 2nd December. In the middle of January, 1905, M. Combes, owing to resentment at certain incidents in connection with the administration of the army, carried a vote of confidence by a majority of only ten votes and resigned. Before the end of the month a new Cabinet under the presidency of M. Rouvier, retaining several members of M. Combes’ administration, was formed, which asserted its determination to carry out the policy of its predecessor in its relations with the Vatican. The Chamber of Deputies referred to a new Commission all the Bills dealing with the question of Church and State which had been presented to it, including that of M. Combes. Instead of adopting any one of them, the Commission decided to draft its own Bill, and shortly afterwards presented to the Chamber a Bill which engaged the close attention of the deputies for several months in the spring and summer of the year 1905. It passed through the Chamber on the 3rd of July, and was sent to the Senate the following day. … The Senate made no alterations in the Bill, and it became law on the 6th of December, 1905."
_John A. Bain, The New Reformation, chapter 17 (T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1900)._
{277}
"The law of the 9th of December, 1905, which put an end to the regime of the Concordat and substituted that of separation between Church and State, had been promulgated on the 11th of December, 1905. It was to come into effect a year after its promulgation. The Protestants and the Israelites had accepted it even before it was passed; but they represented an infinitesimal minority, and it was not that minority that the legislators had had in view when they framed the law of separation. The one question in the matter was that of the attitude that would be taken by the Catholics,—the counsels that would come to them from Rome.
"In the French Episcopate there were two opposing currents of opinion, one for acceptance of the law, under certain reserves, the other for resistance. In the latter part of November, 1905, some bishops met in Paris and agreed that energetic efforts must be made to prevent action at Rome on misinformation as to the situation of the Church in France and the state of mind prevailing in it. Monseigneur Fulbert Petit, Archbishop of Besançon, was their chosen envoy, and in the following January he repaired to Rome. There he met other bishops who had come to give counsels to the Pope that were not pacific; and he met, also, the Père Le Doré, former superior of the dissolved congregation of the Eudistes, well known for his uncompromising opinions and his aggressive temper, but who had been commissioned to convey to Rome the proceedings of the meeting of French cardinals at Paris, on the 28th of December, which showed a majority in favor of the acceptance of the law. At the same time, an important meeting of bishops was held at Albi, under the presidency of Monsignor Mignot, the majority at which meeting, notably the Archbishop who received them and the Archbishop of Toulouse, Monsignor Germain, made no secret of their desire to adjust themselves to the law, according to the expression of Cardinal Lecot.
"But nothing said or done drew the Pope from the silence which he kept. Then it was rumored that the head of the Church would reserve his decision until a general assembly of the French episcopate, which the French cardinals had advised, could be held, to propose a solution of the question. This, however, was contradicted positively by the party which urged resistance to the law.
"Such was the situation when the Government, obliged to act,—since the period of delay fixed by the law was only a year,—came to the first proceedings which the Act prescribed. Article 43 of the law provided for administrative rules, of which the part relating to inventories appeared logically the first, that being the operation which needed consideration before all others. The second part of the regulations had to do with the life pensions and temporary provisions accorded to the ministers of religion. The regulation concerning pensions and provisions was published in the _Journal Official_ of January 20, 1906. [Article 11 of the Act assigned to priests or ministers of more than sixty years of age, who had been not less than thirty years in an ecclesiastical service salaried by the state, a yearly life pension of three-fourths of their former stipend. To those under sixty years of age and above forty-five, whose service had been for less than thirty years but not less than twenty, it assigned one-half of their previous compensation.] …
"The first executive act imposed on the Government was the inventorying of the property, movable and fixed, belonging to the State, to the departments or to the communes, of which the establishments of public worship had had the use. Article 3 of the law required this to be proceeded with immediately after its promulgation. This article had been voted in the Chamber and in the Senate by very large majorities, and, so to speak, without discussion, so rational and judicial it seemed to be. In fact, as the existence of the public establishments of worship came to an end with the regime of the Concordat, the succession to them was left open, and an inventory, descriptive and estimative, of their property, was a necessary measure preliminary to any devolution of such property, dependent on that succession. … Being one of those conservative measures which attack no right and leave a continuous state of things, there was no expectation of much feeling about it among Catholics. … Apparently, the consistent attitude on the part of Catholics, provisionally, at least, and until the Pope had spoken, would be one of calm, of prudence, of expectancy. Such was the purport of the instructions given by the bishops, even by the most combative. These latter, while condemning the law with vehemence, did not counsel a recourse to force against the agents appointed to make the inventory. They required but one thing of their priests and of the administrators of parish property, which was that they should not coöperate in the work, and that they should make declaration that their non-resistance did not imply acceptance of the law.
"On the 29th of December, 1905, a first decree for regulating the procedure was issued by the Council of State. This was followed by a circular from the Minister of Finance which, it must be confessed, roused a justifiable feeling among the Catholics. From one phrase in that circular it could be understood that the officials making the inventory were authorized to demand the opening of the tabernacles. M. Groussau questioned the Minister on the subject, and M. Merlou cleared away all misunderstanding by replying that officials were to accept the declaration of the curé of a church as to the contents of its tabernacle; and that they had been instructed to avoid everything that could give pain to pious minds. The Abbé Gayraud recognized that these decisions of the Government were in conformity with the instructions of the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris, and the interpellation was withdrawn.
"The inventories were begun at once after this decision of the question of the tabernacles. At first there was no disorder. The bishops, notably those of Toulouse, of Rouen, of Albi, of Besançon, of Arras and Chartres, and their curés, from their example, confined themselves to the reading of a protestation to the receiver of the registration, after which the receiver was left free to fulfil his mission. But soon, in some dioceses, particularly in Paris, in the West, and in one part of the Center, the inventorying was made the pretext for demonstrations more political than religious, organized by enthusiasts or by political cliques. Generally the clergy were passively present at these demonstrations. … {278} These tumultuous manifestations, at the head of which the most conspicuous personalities of the reactionary opposition were often seen, ended by degenerating into veritable riots, necessitating the intervention of troops, and leading finally to bloody conflicts."
_René Wallier, Le Vingtième Siècle Politique, Annee 1906, pages 123-132._
It was not until the 17th of February that the silence of the Pope on the matters that were agitating France and the Papal Church was broken. Then the "Encyclical Vehementer," so named, according to custom, from its first word, was published.
FRANCE: Measures and proceedings of the separation as recounted by opponents.
"In the first period of his premiership M. Combes was not prepared either to denounce the Concordat or to separate the churches from the State, simply because he found public opinion not yet ripe for either measure. Later he thought he saw in adopting this course a means of prolonging his official existence, a matter of considerable importance to a country doctor like himself without large private resources. Having slaughtered nearly all religious congregations or prepared their ultimate extinction, Combes appeared to seek no further occupation for himself and to fortify his position by attacking the Church itself, whose secular clergy he had so recently praised and sought to protect from unfair and ‘unjust concurrence or competition with the regulars!’ Like Waldeck-Rousseau, Combes saw here an opportunity to ‘save’ the Republic from ‘clerical reaction.' Throughout its whole discreditable history this third Republic of France has only been kept alive by being periodically ‘saved’ by some clever politician from ‘perils’ conjured up to terrorize the peasantry, who still recall the misery of their ancestors in the old _régime_ and the misfortunes of France in the downfall of the first and second Empires. … The Pope protested, in March, 1904, against the bad faith and infamous aggressions of the French Government in the matter of religious education and those imparting it, and M. Delcassé, through the French Ambassador at the Vatican, protested against the Papal protest. In the following month M. Loubet, as President of the French Republic, visited the King of Italy at Rome, at the same time politely, but significantly, ignoring the existence of the Pope and the Vatican, at which court France then had accredited an Ambassador! Then followed the protest of the Vatican, addressed directly to the French Government, and the protest simultaneously sent to all the powers where Papal Nuncios are in residence. …
"In March, 1904, had arisen the trouble in the Diocese of Dijon, France, which culminated in students of the diocesan seminary refusing to receive ordination from the hands of the Bishop, Monsignor Le Nordez. The Bishop of Dijon was, unfortunately, not the only one of the French episcopate claiming to be a ‘victim of hatred, deceit and calumny.’ Almost from the commencement of his episcopate Monsignor Geay, Bishop of Laval, was attacked by accusations filed at Rome, charges which were examined into during the Pontificate of Leo XIII., and which led the Holy Office to advise the Bishop to resign his see. It was then (in 1900) thought at Rome that in the local conditions actually then existing it was impossible for Monsignor Geay to govern the diocese with the necessary authority and efficacy. Monsignor Geay agreed to resign, provided he received another bishopric in France. This condition appeared unacceptable to the Vatican, but no further action was taken in this case until May 17, 1904, when by order of Pius X. the request for the Bishop’s resignation was renewed, and in case it was not forthcoming within a specified time an ecclesiastical trial was intimated as inevitable. Notwithstanding the secret and private character of this last letter emanating from the Holy Office, Monsignor Geay communicated its contents to the French Government. Combes and Delcassé, jealous of the prerogatives of the French State and presumably caring little for the honor of the French episcopate, notified Cardinal Merry del Val (by the acting Charge d’ Affaires) ‘that if the letter of May 17 is not annulled the government will be led to take the measures that a like derogation of the compact which binds France and the Holy See admits of.’ The Papal Nuncio at Paris explained to M. Delcassé that this was not a threat of deposition of the Bishop without a decision of the French Government, but an invitation to the Bishop to meet the charges by a voluntary resignation.
"As regards Monsignor Le Nordez and Monsignor Geay, respectively Bishops of Dijon and Laval, their long hesitation between the wishes of the French Government and the will of the Holy See ended by the departure of both of them for Rome. The government then promptly suppressed their salaries and after they had (under virtual pressure) placed their ‘voluntary resignation’ in the hands of the Holy Father, an allowance from the funds of the Vatican was made to each of them. They have since lived in France in a retirement, varied at first by interviews of Monsignor Geay with reporters that have since happily ceased. The severance of diplomatic relations with the Vatican was completed by a note from M. Delcassé to the Papal Nuncio at Paris stating that in consequence of the rupture of diplomatic relations between France and the Vatican ‘the mission of the Nuncio would henceforth be deprived of scope.’ In the parliamentary session of November 26, 1904, the credit for the Embassy at the Vatican was stricken from the budget. …
"After the downfall of Combes, through the odium attaching to his spy system, the Minister of the Interior and of Public Worship presented to the Chamber of Deputies on behalf of the Rouvier Ministry a project of law to establish the separation. If for Combes separation had signified little else than spoliation, aggravated by oppression, the Rouvier plan sought to render spoliation less unjust, less intolerant. The ministerial project having been somewhat altered by the commission, conferences were held and a final agreement having been obtained, the proposed law was reported to the Chamber of Deputies in March, 1905. It is unnecessary to follow the parliamentary evolution of this immature project, forced as an issue by two successive Premiers who had far less solicitude for the permanent interests of their country than to assure their own continuance in power. M. Briand, speaking for the commission, took great trouble to throw upon the Pope the responsibility of a law which he at the same time declared to be perfectly good, beneficent for the Republic and honorable for its authors! Alas! for separatists, in an unguarded moment Combes betrayed the utter falsity and ridiculous insincerity of this pompous and solemn pretence of the anti-religious majority, that the Pope forced the separation upon France. In the parliamentary session of January 14, 1905, Combes declared: ‘When I assumed power I judged that public opinion was insufficiently prepared for this reform. I have judged it to be necessary to lead it to that.’
{279}
"When the law of separation, as finally adopted in the Chamber of Deputies, was referred to the Senate, the Senatorial commission, under ministerial pressure, adopted the law as passed in the Chamber, without change of a single word. Although the law was the most important of any passed in France for a hundred years, and though it is fraught with grave influences upon the destinies of the country, this hastily matured, ill-framed measure, with all its unjust and vexatious provisions, was swallowed whole by a commission of cowardly, truckling Senatorial politicians, who disregarded their plain duty at the dictation of Radicals and Socialists on the outside. Separationists both in and out of Parliament were eager to see the law become operative before the universal suffrage of France could have an opportunity of passing judgment upon the principle of the separation in the parliamentary elections of May, 1906. …
"In the Papal Consistory of December 11, 1905, the Pope pronounced an allocution protesting against the law of separation in mild and temperate language, announcing his intention of again treating upon the same subject ‘more solemnly and more deliberately at an opportune time.’ The Holy Father evidently waited for the regulations of public administration that would indicate in what manner the Government of France intended to administer and enforce the law. …
"Immediately after the adoption of the law of separation the government appointed a special commission to elaborate rules of public administration by which the law was to be interpreted and applied. This commission being stuffed with the anti-religious element, its work was worthy of its authors. … The first details of the regulations officially promulgated governed the taking of inventories of all movable and real property of churches, chapels and ecclesiastical buildings, including rectories, chapter houses, homes of retreat for aged and infirm priests (even pension endowments), etc., ostensibly to facilitate the transfer of these properties to such associations for the maintenance of public worship as might be formed under the provisions of the law of separation. These inventories were imposed upon all religious bodies—Catholic, Protestant and Jewish—and the law was made applicable to Algiers, where there is a large Mahomedan population. Viewed in the abstract, the taking of inventories was a formality necessary to an application of principles inscribed in the law. As estimates of value such inventories are worthless, because compiled by agents of the administration of Public Domains or treasury agents, unaided by experts in art, architecture and archivial paleography. The Director General of the Register prescribed to agents taking these inventories a request for the opening of tabernacles in churches and chapels to facilitate completeness and accuracy. This order aroused a storm of indignation throughout France and the government realized that a stupid blunder had been made, and it was announced that agents would content themselves with gathering and incorporating into their report declarations of the priests upon the nature and value of sacred vessels contained in the tabernacles.
"The taking of inventories of churches and their contents commenced simultaneously in many parts of France in the latter part of January, 1906. Instead of the simple formality hastily accomplished without general observation, of which separatists had dreamed, this proceeding was characterized in various places by scenes of the wildest disorder. When officials of the Registry presented themselves for the taking of the inventories, the clergy, surrounded or attended by trustees of the building, read formal protests against what most of them styled ‘the first step in an act of spoliation.’ … If these protests had not been accompanied by physical violence, the country might have been spared the shocking scenes that took place in Paris and the provinces. In many churches free fights took place between militant Catholic laymen, opposed to an inventory, and police, firemen and troops, who burst open the doors of churches or broke them down with fire axes in order to make an inventory possible. While at the doors chairs and fragments of broken confessionals were flying through the air, pious women within sang:
‘We will pray God that the Church may be able to teach the truth, to combat error which causes division, to preach to all charity!’"
_F. W. Parsons, Separation of Church and State in France (American Catholic Quarterly Review, July, 1906)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906. The Morocco Question. Sudden hostility of Germany to the Anglo-French Agreement. Demand for an International Conference. The Conference at Algeciras. The resulting Act.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906. Claims against Venezuela.
See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906. President Fallières succeeds Loubet. Fall of the Rouvier Ministry. Rise of M. Clemenceau. The Elections of May. Conformity to the Separation Law prohibited by the Pope. Sequestration of Church Property. The Socialists and the Bourgeois. Justice at last to Dreyfus. Honors to Picquart.
The presidential term of M. Loubet, who had been elected on the 19th of February, 1899, would expire on the 18th of February, 1906. M. Loubet declined a reflection, and M. Fallières, the chosen candidate of the various groups of Republicans, was elected President of the French Republic at a joint session of the two chambers of the National Assembly, on the 17th of January, by 449 votes of a total 848. The new President was inducted into office on the 18th of February, and, according to usage, was offered the resignations of the existing Ministry, under M. Rouvier, which, however, he did not accept. M. Rouvier and his colleagues continued in office until the 7th of March, when a vote in the Chamber of Deputies which expressed want of confidence compelled a resignation that could not be declined.
{280}
The new Ministry then formed, and announced on the 14th, was nominally presided over by M. Sarrien, President of the Council and Minister of Justice, but its real chief was known to be M. Clemenceau, Minister of the Interior. Other important members of this Cabinet were M. Bourgeois, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and M. Aristide Briand, Minister of Public Instruction and of Worship. Sarrien and Bourgeois were classed politically as Radicals, Briand as a Socialist, and Clemenceau as a Socialist-Radical. The Ministerial declaration read in both chambers on the 14th was criticised as colorless, and as indicating an incongruity of political material in the make-up of the administration. On the burning question of the execution of the law for the separation of Church and State its language was:
"The law on the separation of Church and State has met, in the execution of the provisions relating to the inventories, a resistance as unexpected as it is unjustified. There is no one among us who wishes to assail in any manner whatever the freedom of religious belief and worship. The law will be applied in the same liberal spirit in which it was adopted by the Parliament. … But it is our duty to insure the execution of all laws throughout the land. Under a republican government the law is the highest expression of national sovereignty; it must everywhere be respected and everywhere obeyed. The Government intends to apply with all necessary circumspection, but with inflexible firmness, the new legislation which certain parties of opposition strive vainly to misrepresent."
On the 14th of April the Chamber of Deputies was adjourned _sine die_, and fresh elections to it were to be held in May. "The seventh legislature held under the Constitution of 1875 came to an end amid a domestic confusion unparalleled in France since 1871. In the Nord and the Pas de Calais there were miners’ strikes, at Clermont-Ferrand strikes in the building trade; at Lorient and Toulon there was a general strike, and there were strikes also at Alais and Bordeaux. At Paris the compositors, the excavators and the railway men on the Metropolitan had left work, and the postmen also had joined the movement, though they were servants of the State. M. Clemenceau paid two visits to Lens to treat with the strikers; following his example and by his orders the magistrates, officers and soldiers exhibited admirable coolness as well as energy in controlling the excited crowds without resorting to force. … Attempts were made to form what were virtually revolutionary governments, and these announced openly that on May 1, capitalism would be assailed, a general strike proclaimed in Paris, and the Government swept away if it showed signs of attempting to interfere. These threats set up an unprecedented panic, which was intensified by the measures taken by the Government to get rid of it. Troops guarded the Metropolitan Railway workshops, the printing establishments, the bakeries. All the cavalry and infantry available were concentrated at Paris, and schools and empty houses taken up for their accommodation."
_Annual Register, 1906, page 270._
In the midst of these distractions the political canvass for a new representation of the Republic in its legislature was carried on, and the elections were but slightly disturbed. They went so sweepingly in favor of the Government that only 176 seats in the Chamber, out of 589, were carried by the opposition. The victory of the Government was more complete and decisive than the most sanguine had expected. Said a writer in _The Fortnightly Review:_
"It is the end of the long struggle between the Republic and its internal enemies, those Emigres de l’intérieur as M. Paul Sabatier has happily called them. The political power of the Church is broken forever; the parties of reaction are finally crushed, and their future will be that of the Jacobites after Culloden. … It may perhaps be useful to record the relative strength of parties in the new Chamber as compared with the old. Precise accuracy is difficult, owing to the uncertainty as to the exact group to which a few of the deputies should be attributed, but the following figures are as near exactitude as possible:—
New Chamber. Old Chamber. Ministerialists: (The _Bloc_):-- Republicans of the Left (Alliance Démocratique and Gauche Démocratique) 90 83
Radicals 117 98
Radical-Socialists 132 119
Independent Socialists 20 14
Total 359 314
Unified Socialists 54 41
Opposition:— Republicans of the Centre (Union Républicaine and Progressists) 68 97
Nationalists 30 53
Conservatives and Clericals 78 84
Total 176 234
"But the mere figures do not bring out the full significance of the election. Even more important than the fact that only 108 Clerical and Nationalist deputies were returned is the fact that these 108 represent, with very few exceptions, the most ignorant and backward districts in France. Immediately after the election the _Matin_ published an electoral map of France, in which the districts represented by Opposition deputies were left white. It is an instructive document. The whole of central France is a solid mass of black, in the north and south the white spots are few and scattered, in the east black very greatly predominates; only in the west is there any conspicuous show of white."
_Robert Dell, France, England, and Mr. Bodley (Fortnightly Review, September, 1906)._
Manifestly the majority in France approved the severance of religious institutions from the political organization of the State. In recognition of the fact, the General Assembly of French Bishops, sitting soon afterwards at Paris, petitioned the Pope, by the vote of a large majority, to permit the forming of Public Worship Associations under the Separation Law. The papal reply, given late in the summer, was a new Encyclical, formally forbidding French Catholics to form such Associations for taking the offered use of the church buildings and property, as provided for continued exercises of religion by the law. A little later the prohibition was carried farther, and French Catholics were forbidden to conform to the Associations Law of 1891, as well as to the Separation Law. {281} There seems to have been a disposition in the Government to extend, from one year to two, the period allowed for conformity to the latter enactment; but this attitude on the part of the head of the Church dispelled it. Accordingly, on the 11th of December, 1906, when the term fixed by the law expired, sequestration of the property of the vestries was pronounced, and buildings occupied in connection with the churches by bishops, rectors, seminaries, etc., were ordered to be vacated with no further delay.
Before matters reached this stage M. Sarrien had resigned, on account of ill health, and the premiership had passed to Clemenceau. The Cabinet underwent a degree of reconstruction soon afterwards, and the upright, courageous Picquart, formerly Colonel, now Brigadier-General, who had stood so long almost alone in army circles as a champion of justice to the foully wronged Dreyfus, had been given the portfolio of War.
See, in Volume VI. of this work, FRANCE: A. D. 1897-1899)
To Dreyfus himself the Republic had made all the reparation that it could. On the 12th of July in this year its highest court had pronounced a decision which branded with falsity and forgery every document and the whole testimony on which he had been convicted, and declared that "the accusation against Dreyfus was completely unjustified." Thereupon he was reinstated in the army with the rank of major, and not many days later, on the spot where the ceremony of his degradation had been performed, in 1894, he received the insignia of a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor.
In the May elections for the Chamber of Deputies the Socialists had been heavily reinforced, and their most strenuous leader, M. Jaurès, was inspired to say in his journal, L'Humanité:
"There is no more time to be lost. This time we must give the finishing blow to the Reaction, to all parties of the past, to Clericalism and Cæsarism. After clearing the battleground of all its litter, the Proletariat must be able to say to the face of the Republican Democracy, the Radical Democracy which at last is master of public power: ‘What are you going to do for workmen? What reforms, what guarantees, are you going to give them? How are you going to help French society out of the deep crisis in which it struggles? How, by what organization of Property and Labor, will you put an end to the exploiting of men, to the war of classes let loose by the Capitalist form of property?’" Quoting these words, soon afterwards, a writer in _The Atlantic Monthly_ remarked:
"Such words are not the mere rhetoric of a Parliamentary dictator who has just suffered a year’s eclipse in the retrograde combinations given to the Radical majority by Prime Minister Rouvier. Almost physiologically, certainly socially, the millions of French workmen stand over against property-holders in a way to which there is nothing comparable in the Northern and Western United States, with all their labor difficulties. They form a separate class in society, because French property-holders form an exclusive caste. It was the middle classes, the property-holding bourgeois and the peasant proprietors bound up with them, who profited by the great Revolution against the privileged classes of that day,—royalty, clergy, and nobles. During the century which has elapsed the triumphant bourgeois have steadily persisted in throwing around themselves a practically impenetrable wall of legal and social privilege in their turn. And now there is a spontaneous upheaval of the excluded, unprivileged, inferior class."
_Stoddard Dewey, The Year in France (Atlantic Monthly, August, 1906)._
Mainly, it appears, from the prompting and the influence of the Socialist and Labor organizations, France obtained, in 1906, a law making Sunday a day of rest from most descriptions of industry and commerce, exceptions being made to allow travel and transportation companies, lighting and water works, newspaper offices, and some other performers of public services, to continue their operations, while hotels, restaurants, wine shops, drug stores, and the like, were exempted from closing their doors.
See (in this Volume) SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906. Woman Suffrage Movement.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906. The Thrift and consequent loanable Wealth of the country. The power that it makes for peace.
"In the world at large, however, France has also come to a consciousness of her real power. An English financier had already said that if the French people continue to live on the principle, ‘where you have four sous spend only two,’ they will end by having in their possession all the coined gold in the world. The great portion of it which they already possess, and the distress caused to German finance and industry by the patriotic refusal of the united French banks to allow their gold to be drawn until peace was secure, had a great and probably decisive influence in the happy termination of this entangled affair of Morocco. The floating of the latest Russian loan has since come to show yet further the riches of France, to which tourists alone, it is estimated, add two billion francs in gold each year. This money power and money need should tend to the keeping of European peace more than all the theories of the pacifists who clamor for a disarmament impossible to obtain."
_Stoddard Dewey, The Year in France (Atlantic Monthly, August, 1906)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1906. Deposition of the insane King of Anam.
See (in this Volume) ANAM.
FRANCE: A. D. 1906 (February). The Papal Encyclical "Vehementer Nos."
See PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (February).
FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907. The Separation of Church and State. Further measures and proceedings, as related from opposite standpoints.
From the Separationist Standpoint:
"The practical question, what course the French Catholics were to adopt when the law should go into effect, was first answered by the pope in his encyclical Gravissimo, published August 10, 1906, eight months after the promulgation of the law. The gist of the document is in two sentences: ‘After having condemned as was our duty this iniquitous law, we examined with the greatest care whether the articles of the aforesaid law would leave at least some means of organizing religious life in France so as to rescue the sacred principles upon which rests the Holy Church.’ Having consulted the bishops, and addressed 'fervent prayers to the Father of Light,’ the pope came to the following conclusion:
‘As for the associations of worship, as the law organizes them, we decree that they can absolutely not be formed without violating the sacred rights which are the very life of the church.’
{282}
"Is there any other form of association which might be both legal and canonical? Pius X did not see any. Therefore, as long as the law remained as it was, the Holy Father forbade the French Catholics to try any form of association which did not promise, in an ‘unmistakable and legal manner, that the divine constitution of the church, the immutable rights of the Roman pontiff and the bishops, as well as their authority over the property necessary to the church, especially over the sacred edifices, will be forever insured in those associations.’ …
"For this decision there were, from the ecclesiastical point of view, three grounds. One was the failure of the law of 1905 to recognize, in so many words, the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Another was the abrupt fashion in which the French government broke off its diplomatic relations with the Vatican. The fact that the government consistently ignored the pope during the drafting of the bill was a third. …
"Under what regime the churches were to live was at first somewhat uncertain; but M. Briand speedily discovered in existing legislation all that was needed to insure the continuance of religious worship. He was willing to admit that the church was not obliged to avail herself of the privileges that the new law provided for her. Law imposes duties on citizens, but it does not force them to make use of rights or privileges. Everything that is not forbidden is lawful. … The minister stated that the priests could make use of the churches after having filed such an application or declaration as is required for ordinary meetings by the law of 1881. These declarations would be valid for a whole year instead of for one meeting. But under this regime the priests would be simply temporary occupants of the buildings of worship without any legal title.
"This compromise proved no more satisfactory to the Vatican than the law of 1905. …
"The pope refused to sanction this arrangement. He objected to the scheme of yearly declaration. In the first place he complained that this broad interpretation of the law on public meetings was merely a personal fancy of M. Briand which might not bind his successors. In the second place, the dignity of the priests did not allow them to accept the humiliating position of simple occupants of the churches. …
"The government, however, could not leave several million Catholics in a position in which opportunity to perform their religious duties depended upon uncertain texts and the circulars of a temporary minister of worship. It therefore set out to draft a bill that would be acceptable to the church without any recourse to the discarded associations of worship. The new bill was submitted to Parliament December 15, 1906; was accepted by the Chamber December 21 and by the Senate December 29, and was promulgated January 2, 1907. …
"Most of the privileges granted in the law of 1905 are withdrawn; and the law of associations of 1901, combined with the law of public meetings of 1881, forms the basis of the new regime. …
"Of all the catastrophes prophesied or feared by foes or friends none has occurred. The new regime so violently attacked in and out of France is being gradually acclimated."
_Othon Guerlac, The Separation of Church and State in France Political Science Quarterly, June, 1908._
FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907. The Separation of Church and State. Further measures and proceedings, as related from opposite standpoints.
From the Standpoint of the Church:
"The third meeting of the French episcopate, held at the Château de la Muette, Paris, January 15-19, resulted in a declaration (approved by the Holy See) of their unanimous consent to essay the organization of public worship in churches to be placed at the Bishops’ disposal free; an essential condition being a legal contract (authorized by Government) between themselves or their clergy and the Prefects or Mayors to whom such churches (sequestrated in December) have been handed or will be handed over; the contract to be for a term of eighteen years, during which term (being fixed by the common law of municipal leases of communal properties) neither Mayors nor Prefects shall in any way interfere either in parochial administration or in regard to the conditions of occupancy of the edifices, which must be, as regards police, under control of the priest in charge, the mayor intervening only on grave occasions when his official duties require him according to law to re-establish disturbed order.
"This document, published on January 29, was immediately, with a form of contract, sent by each Bishop to the Parish priests in his diocese with a request to be informed immediately whether the proposed contract would be entered into by their respective mayors, and instructing them if possible to get it signed at once and return it to the Bishop. Of course, from every parish where Catholics are strong and zealous the signed contracts were quickly obtainable or obtained. But so soon as the Minister of Worship learned these proceedings, he circularized the Prefects of France on February 1:
"‘You will shortly receive instructions concerning the application of the Article in the Law of January 2, 1907, providing that free use of Communal buildings intended for worship, and of their fittings, may, subject to the requirements of Article 13 in the Law of 9 December, 1905, be accorded by an administration act of the mayors to the ministers of worship specified in declarations of worship-meetings. It is extremely urgent, to prevent mayors being entrapped into giving their signatures, that you should telegraphically warn them, they are not entitled to enter into a contract of this kind without preliminary deliberation by their municipal council, and that they should, pending the vote of that body, confine themselves, if asked for it, to giving an acknowledgment of receipt of any request for use of edifices they may have received. You will also assure them they shall at a very early date receive instructions defining the conditions to be observed to render such contracts valid, and will direct them to do nothing until those instructions reach them.’
"It is due to M. Briand to acknowledge: first, that he lost no time whatever in fulfilling this promise; second, that his new circular on the application of the law of January 2, 1907, which bears date Paris, February 3rd, and was published the following evening, lays down regulations concerning the leases of Churches and Communal Chapels which on the face of these are fair, reasonable, and likely to be universally acceptable. {283} The main conditions are, approval of the agreements by the municipal councils, failing which mayors cannot enter into them; maximum term to be eighteen years; the lessee (whether a curé, or a worship association) to keep the buildings in proper repair; leases for longer periods than eighteen years to be sanctioned by the prefect; that the curé acts by permission of his ecclesiastical superior may be stated in the lease, but such superior is not to be entitled in any way, once the document is signed, to interfere, or exercise authority. …
"In Paris the appearance of the circular was hailed with satisfaction by Catholics and reasonable men. … Cardinal Richard deems it proper and useful to direct his priests to make the declaration, after the contract is duly signed, and when His Eminence shall authorize them to make it. …
"His Eminence lost no time in submitting to the Protestant prefect of the Seine, M. de Selves, a draft lease of the Paris Cathedral (Notre Dame) and the historical St. Denis Basilica. It was understood that, if settled and signed, this contract should serve as the model to be followed in the remaining eighty-five French dioceses. The Cardinal Secretary of State at the Vatican authorized these negotiations, against his personal judgment, without any illusions as to the result, simply to satisfy the French episcopate and a minority in the Sacred College. …
"After negotiations extending over three weeks, the Prefect informed the Cardinal (in writing, on February 23) that His Eminence’s proposals were inacceptable, but the government invited amended ones based on ministerial declarations made in the Chamber during a stormy debate on February 19, when M. Briand found himself forced to confess the churches were left open in view of the truth that a parliamentary majority had ‘no right to hinder millions of Catholic compatriots from practising their religion.’ The Cardinal Archbishop replied immediately that the text of the draft submitted embodied the extreme limits of possible concessions."
_J. F. Boyd, The French Ecclesiastical Revolution (American Catholic Quarterly Review, January-April, 1907)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1907. Effects of the Separation Law. The Catholics of France lose all Legal Organization.
"The Church Separation Law has failed to do the particular work for which it was voted by the preceding Parliament. Catholic citizens have chosen to undergo its penalties, with new pains and reprisals voted by the present Parliament, rather than accept that civil reorganization of their religion which it imposed on them. The result has been to deprive French Catholics, not only of the church property which had been restored to them after the confiscations of the Revolution, but also of all church property of whatever kind, even such as had since been gathered together by their private and voluntary contributions. It is impossible to foresee how they are legally to constitute new church property for themselves. By the automatic working of separation, Catholics, so far as any corporative action might be intended, are left quite outside their country’s laws.
"The Associations Law had previously suppressed their religious orders and congregations, that is, all those teaching and other communities which combined individual initiatives into a working power for their religion. In virtue of that law, their convents and colleges and the other properties of such religious associations have ‘reverted’ to the State, which is gradually liquidating them for its own purposes.
"No example of temporal sacrifices for religion’s sake on such a scale has been seen since Catholics in the France of the Revolution chose to lose all, in many cases life itself, rather than accept the schismatical civil constitution of their clergy, which was accompanied by a like nationalizing of all their church property."
_Stoddard Dewey, The Year in France (Atlantic Monthly, August, 1907)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1907. Rapid Development of the Syndicalist Labor Union Movement. The Confederation Generate du Travail.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1907.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907. Popular Vote on the Greatest Frenchman of the Nineteenth Century, awarding the distinction to Louis Pasteur.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (May-July). The revolt of the Wine-growers of the Midi.
From various causes, the wine-growers of Southern France have suffered from an increasing decline in the market for their products. They attributed this wholly to the extensive manufacture of adulterated and counterfeited wines, though it came partly, without doubt, from the increasing use of beers and spirituous liquors among the French. The struggling cultivators of the grape, who could hardly obtain a living from their vineyards, accused the government of neglect to make and enforce effective laws for the suppression of the adulterating frauds. They demanded new measures for the suppression of all vinous beverages that were not the pure product of the grape. In the spring of 1907 their attitude became seriously threatening; for a leader named Marcelin Albert, having an eloquent tongue, a bold spirit, and a capacity for command, had risen among them. Alarming demonstrations of popular excitement occurred in the cities of Perpignan, Montpellier, Narbonne, and others.
Then, in May, the discontented people gave formal notice that they would refuse to pay taxes if all adulterate wine-making was not summarily stopped by the 10th of June. At the appointed time the threat was even more than made good, for most of the municipal officers in the four departments of Gard, Aude, Hérault, and the Pyrenees Orientales resigned and the machinery of local government was dissolved. The troublesome situation thus created was handled ably by Premier Clemenceau. On one hand he secured new legislation from Parliament against wine adulteration, while promptly ordering troops to the region of revolt on the other. Marcelin Albert and another leader, Dr. Ferroul, Mayor of Narbonne, were arrested, and order was soon restored, though a few collisions with turbulent crowds were attended with some loss of life.
The new laws enacted for the occasion were intended in part to secure an annual record of the vineyard product of the country that would enable the Government to keep knowledge of it from the vine to the wine cask, and make fraudulent tampering with it more difficult, at least.
{284}
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (September). Convention with Great Britain concerning Commercial Relations with Canada.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (November). Treaty with Great Britain, Germany, Norway, and Russia, guaranteeing the integrity of Norway.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (November). Treaty with England concerning Death Duties.
See (in this Volume) DEATH DUTIES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1907-1909. Operation in Morocco. Bombardment of Casablanca. Fresh irritation of Germany. Arbitration of the Casablanca incident. Dethronement of Sultan Abd el Aziz by his brother, Mulai Hafid. Franco-German Agreement.
See (in this Volume) Morocco: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908. North Sea and Baltic Agreements.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908. The Situation of the Catholic Church since the Separation of Church and State. A Church Organization impossible.
"To question whether the Catholics in France, who have alone done more than the Catholics in any other nation for foreign missions and for the propagation of the faith, will succeed in maintaining the Church in their own country by private contributions, will perhaps arouse astonishment. Nevertheless it may be questioned. We do not doubt the generosity of our people, but that which does give us concern is the impossibility of organizing any revenue which can be permanent. … The Church would be able to surmount the difficulty if she had endowments, revenues, or property, as in other countries. But that of course demands some regular organization, some corporation or some body recognized by the laws of the country and capable of acquiring, possessing, and exercising ordinary property rights. We cannot state too emphatically that such an organization for the Church is not possible to-day in France. On one side the only body authorized by the law to look after the material side of the religious interests is the _association cultuelle_, or local committee of public worship, as defined and regulated by the Law of Separation. On the other side, this _association cultuelle_ has been declared by the Pope incompatible with the hierarchical constitution of the Church of Rome, and the bishops, the priests, and the Catholic laity, in obedience to their Supreme Head, have abstained and will continue to abstain from forming any such organization. Not only, then, have there been no Catholic _associations cultuelles_ to receive from the state the portion of the former religious property (the half perhaps) which we might have kept; but there will be none in the future to receive a gift of any kind. In the eyes of the law there is no diocese, no parish, no corporation representing diocese or parish. The bishop and the pastor are only individual citizens, Messrs. So-and-So. They cannot hold property except as individuals, and what they might receive for religious purposes cannot be handed down to their successors,—it must revert only to their legal heirs. In brief, no permanent body whatever can provide for the maintenance of public worship.
"This is the situation with its almost insurmountable difficulties. In all probability it will be a long time before we escape from it."
_Felix Klein, The Present Difficulties of the Church in France (Fortnightly Review, April, 1908)._
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (April). Treaty with England, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (June). Treaty with Japan, adjusting interests of each country in the East.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1907 (JUNE).
FRANCE: A. D. 1908 (June). Purchase of the Western Railway.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908-1909. Operations in and around Morocco. French Mauritanie. Pushing French lines toward the West.
See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1908-1909. Attitude on the question of the Austrian Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
FRANCE: A. D. 1909. Socialism and the Socialist Parties. The classes appealed to. The leaders and the followers.
See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909. A late awakening to the need of better Technical and Industrial Training.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909. Coöperative Organization in Agriculture.
See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (January). Elections to one-third of the French Senate. Success of the Socialist-Radicals. Endorsement of the Clemenceau Ministry.
Elections to the one-third of the French Senate which goes out every third year were held on Sunday, the 3d of January, and resulted heavily in favor of the party which calls itself Socialist-Radical, holding a middle ground between the extreme Socialists and the Moderate Republicans. M. Clemenceau, the Premier, is of this party, and his administration had given it great strength. He was one of the Senators whose term had expired, and his constituents of the Var re-elected him by a majority of 390, 46 more than they had formerly given him. Of the 103 Senators chosen at this election the Socialist-Radicals and Radicals (who work together) won 60, giving them secure control of the Senate, where the Moderate Republicans had been holding the balance of power. The latter lost eighteen seats, while the Conservatives or Reactionists of the Right added 1 to the 4 they had previously held. The strength in France of a politically and practically restrained sympathy with the economic ideas of Socialism was proved signally in this election.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (January). Amended Convention with Great Britain concerning Commercial Relations with Canada.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1907-1909.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March). Appointment of Abbé Loisy to the Professorship of the History of Religions in the College of France.
Early in March, 1909, the Abbé Loisy, most conspicuous of the "Modernists" who had been condemned and denounced by the Pope, was appointed by the Minister of Public Instruction to be Professor of the History of Religions in the College de France, filling the chair vacated by the death of M. Réville. The appointment had been recommended by the authorities of the College, which is reputed to be an institution entirely devoted to "disinterested scientific research." Nevertheless, the choice was looked upon at once as being prompted by a motive of offensive antagonism to the Papacy. {285} The Abbé has had distinction for years among the masters of the higher criticism, and five of his books were placed on the "Index" by the church in 1903. The propositions characterized as "Modernism" and condemned by the Pope in 1907 were largely drawn from his writings. The Abbé replied to the condemnation, and was excommunicated.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March-May). Serious strike of Government employés in the Telegraph and Postal Service. Overcome by the firmness of the Government. Disciplinary proceedings. Court decision against Trade Unions among employés of the State.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (MARCH-MAY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (March-June). Report of Parliamentary Commission on the Naval Administration. Alarming conditions.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (April). Reported reanimation of Clerical Anti-Republicanism.
"I learn on excellent authority," said an English correspondent of the Press, writing from Paris in April, "that the leaders of anti-clericalism in the French political world are becoming somewhat concerned as to the rapid recrudescence of the political religious orders, which, although suppressed, are somehow managing to reestablish themselves in France. As was recently pointed out by M. André Mater, in a Volume, ‘La Politique Religieuse de la République Française,’ published under the auspices of the ‘Committee for the defence abroad of the religious policy of France,’ the French monks, and not the French Bishops and priests, were almost entirely responsible for the Vatican’s refusal to accept the three Separation Laws which M. Briand, the then Minister of Public Worship, framed in a conciliatory spirit towards the Roman Catholic Church, and often with the assistance of the French Bishops themselves. The French Government will certainly not allow the religious orders to revive the old campaign of anti-Republicanism, which has, in the opinion of many French Roman Catholics, done so much to compromise the interests of Roman Catholicism in this country."
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (June). Earthquake on the Mediterranean coast.
See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (June-July). Revised Naval Programme. Changes in the Department of the Marine.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July). Discussion of the Navy Report in the Chamber of Deputies. M. Clemenceau’s outbreak of passion. His flings at M. Delcassé resented by the Chamber. He is driven from office by its vote. His Successor, M. Briand, and the New Cabinet. A Socialist Statesman at the head of the Government.
When the report of the Parliamentary Commission on the Navy and the Naval Administration came up for discussion in the Chamber of Deputies, in July, it brought about the overthrow of Prime Minister Clemenceau and his Cabinet in a singular way.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
The report itself had not been seriously threatening to the stability of the Ministry. Responsibility for the weaknesses found in the Naval administration belonged evidently, in large measure, to the predecessors of M. Clemenceau and his colleagues, and they were united in maintaining that M. Picard, who held the Marine portfolio, had done all that could be done since he came to office towards reforming his department. M. Picard himself spoke with an aggressive boldness of self-justification in the debate. His speech, made on the 20th of July, called out M. Delcassé, president of the investigating Commission, who mounted the tribune and delivered an attack on the Government, fierce with the animosities of a long antagonism between M. Clemenceau and himself. This angered the Premier to a degree, apparently, which overpowered his usually clear judgment, and he retorted in a speech which taunted M. Delcassé with references to that Morocco affair in which he and France were subjected to mortifications at the hands of Germany.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906).
It is a matter on which sore feeling exists naturally in France, and concerning which the sympathy of the nation is with M. Delcassé. Hence the Chamber resented Clemenceau’s allusions to it, and Delcassé was cheered when he made a passionate but dignified reply. The Premier would have needed to be blind if he did not see that his own party was against him in the tone he had given to the controversy; and yet he proceeded to a repetition of the taunt he had flung at his opponent before. What followed was thus described to the readers of the London _Times_ the next morning, by its Paris correspondent:
"M. Clemenceau rose in face of a hostile Chamber, which had been profoundly impressed by M. Delcassé, although on entering the Palais Bourbon before the debate this afternoon not a single member of the House had contemplated the possibility of a division which would entail the fall of the Ministry and expose all parties to the necessity of readjustments of electoral arrangements under a new and untried Cabinet within less than a year of the general election. M. Clemenceau said:—
"‘M. Delcassé has taken a great deal of trouble not to reply to the only question which I put to him—namely, you were Minister and you followed a policy which was bound to carry us to one of the greatest humiliations.’
"It seemed, as one gazed down upon the House, that the entire Chamber leapt as one man in indignant repudiation of this sentence, which, moreover, had been truncated by this spontaneous and concerted interruption. When the noise of the slamming desks had died down, M. Clemenceau was heard to say:
"‘Oh, a truce to false indignation, I beg of you. You led us, M. Delcassé, within a hair’s breadth of war and you did nothing to prepare for any such policy by taking military precautions. Everybody is aware that the Ministers of War and of Marine were questioned, and that they declared that we were not ready. (Loud protests.) I have not humiliated France, M. Delcassé humiliated her.’
"As M. Clemenceau returned to his place, there could be no doubt as to the temper of the House. A division was immediately announced on an order of the day of confidence, proposed by M. Jourde and accepted by the Government.
{286}
"The vote took place on priority in favour of this order of the day amid the liveliest agitation. By 212 votes to 176 priority was rejected. As soon as the President had read out the figures, M. Clemenceau and the Ministers rose, and leaving the Government Bench filed out into the lobbies. Loud cheers from the Right and the Extreme Left followed them to the door. It was the fall of the Ministry which has enjoyed the longest lease of life of any under the Third Republic.
"After holding a consultation at the Palais Bourbon, the Prime Minister and his colleagues immediately proceeded to the Elysee in order formally to tender their resignation. President Fallières, who was at dinner and who had not heard the result of the vote in the Chamber, was taken by surprise and expressed regret at the departure of M. Clemenceau, with whom he had collaborated so long. The short interview, which lasted only ten minutes, concluded with a formal request on the part of the President that M. Clemenceau and his colleagues would continue to discharge the duties of their respective Departments until the appointment of their successors."
Though his colleagues went out of office with him, it was M. Clemenceau, alone, who could be said to have "fallen." Even that characterization of the occurrence was criticised by one of his opponents, who said: "M. Clemenceau did not fall; he plunged out of office." "The Chamber had no intention of upsetting the Government," said one of the Republican journals of Paris, "and an hour earlier, in fact, had loudly cheered the Minister of Marine, M. Picard." In these circumstances it was certain that the change of Ministry would make little change in the character or policy of the Government. It did, in fact, make no extensive change in even the personnel of the Ministry; for six members of the Cabinet of M. Clemenceau reappeared in its successor, and these included the new Premier, M. Aristide Briand.
The choice of M. Briand for leadership in the Government appears to have been made by a common consensus of opinion that he was the one man pointed to by all the circumstances of the case. As Minister of Public Worship he had shown a temperateness of disposition and a political capacity, in steering the country through the stormy achievement of the separation of the State from the Church, which won high admiration and esteem both at home and abroad. He had been known as distinctly a Socialist, according to the full meaning of the term in France, and had come into public life with the prejudices raised against that brand of radicalism to contend with. But he had given good proof that he could be practically a statesman as well as theoretically a Socialist, and France appeared to be fully willing to see the helm of Government put into his hands. He is the first fully professed Socialist to attain that position in a great State. In making up his Cabinet he called into it two others of his own Socialist sect, namely, M. Millerand, to be Minister of Public Works, Posts, and Telegraphs, and M. Viviani to be Minister of Labor, as he had been before. For himself he retained the Ministry of Public Worship, and, with it, the Ministry of the Interior. Of other important departments of the Government, that of Foreign Affairs was reassumed by M. Pichon and that of Public Instruction by M. Domergue. General Brun became Minister of War and Admiral Boué de Lapcyrère, Minister of Marine. The Cabinet appears to have been generally recognized as one of exceptional strength.
On the 27th of July the new Premier spoke as such to the Chamber of Deputies for the first time, and did so, it was manifest, with impressive effect. "If I deemed my person to be an element of discord in the Republican party," he said, "I should ask you not to follow me. I could not suppose that serious men would come to ask me to sort out, as it were, from my old ideas those which experience has confirmed within me and those which it has made me discard. If I had been base enough to do that, my interpellators would be right if they refused me their confidence. I come before you just as I am, a man whom you all know. I have been working with you of the majority for the last seven years. You know that I am not afraid of ideas, and that my way of thinking is daring. The Republic seems to me to be the germ of all progress, but I admit only such ideas as are feasible. _Je suis un homme de réalisation._ Those who have watched me know that full well. If there be among you any who are still ignorant of these facts, let them vote against me. I have as yet no mandate from you. Tonight I may have one, but at present there is still time for you to refuse to invest me with one."
At the close of the Premier’s address a motion of confidence was made, and carried by 306 votes against 46.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July). French Deputies to lose pay when not in attendance at the Chamber.
Voting by proxy is permitted in the French Chamber of Deputies, and this encourages absenteeism. To correct that result a remarkable rule was adopted by the Chamber at its session of July 17. "The Socialist Deputy for the Cher, M. Berton, aided by the Socialist Radical M. Dumont, induced the House to adopt, by 441 votes to 77, a measure in virtue of which ‘any Deputy who shall not have signed during six consecutive sittings a certificate of attendance shall be regarded as being absent without permission’ and deprived of his pay. M. Pelletan, ex-Minister of Marine, who is, with men like M. Brisson, President of the Chamber, the type of the old Parliamentary hand of the Republican _régime_, protested in vain against a conception of Parliamentary work which, as he said, humiliated the representatives of France to the position of schoolboys who have to be ruled with a rod of iron lest they play truant. M. Brisson himself pointed out that the proposal of the Socialist Deputies was seriously wanting in respect for the national sovereignty, and he reminded his colleagues that mere attendance in the Chamber was by no means the only, nor necessarily the most effective, way of doing one’s duty as Deputy.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (July). The Pensioning of State Railway Employés. The Pending Workman’s Pension Bill.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY: ITS PROBLEMS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (October). Abrogation of Commercial Agreements with the United States.
See (in this Volume) TARIFFS: UNITED STATES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (October). Clerical attack on the Secular or Neutral Schools.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
{287}
FRANCE: A. D. 1909 (November). Contemplated Reform in Criminal Court Procedure.
See (in this Volume) LAW AND ITS COURTS: FRANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1910. Destructive Floods in France, most seriously in and around Paris.
Many parts of France suffered heavily from extraordinary floods in the later half of January and the early days of February, 1910; but Paris had the worst of the calamity to bear. In its long history the city has been cruelly dealt with many times by the waters of the Seine, which its quays and bridges constrict and obstruct; but this latest experience proved nearly the climax. It was comparable, at least, with a historic flood that dates back to 1615. Large districts were uninhabitable for days; half the streets and squares of the city were under water: foundations of many of the grandest buildings were being sapped, while sewers, subways, and pavements were extensively destroyed. It was not until the beginning of February that any subsidence of the waters occurred, and far into the month before much restoration of conditions could be taken in hand. The suffering meantime was very great and the pecuniary damage immense.
----------FRANCE: End--------
FRANCO, JOÃO: His drastic Government of Portugal.
See (in this Volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
FREDERICK VIII.: Succession to the Crown of Denmark.
See (in this Volume) DENMARK: A. D. 1906.
FREE CHURCH, of Scotland.
See (in this Volume) SCOTLAND: A. D. 1904-1905.
FREE ZONE, Mexican: Its abolition.
For an account of the Free Zone:
See Volume VI. of this work, MEXICAN FREE ZONE.
It went out of existence in 1905.
See (in this Volume) MEXICO: A. D. 1904-1905.
FRIEDJUNG CASE, The.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1908-1909 (OCTOBER-MARCH).
FRIARS’ LANDS, Governmental purchase of the.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902-1903.
FRY, Sir Edward.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: England: A. D. 1907-1909.
FULLER, Sir Bampfylde, Resignation of.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1905-1909.
FULTON CELEBRATION.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.
FURNESS, Sir Christopher: His plan of Profit-sharing with Workmen.
See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: PROFIT-SHARING.
G.
GAELIC LEAGUE.
See (in this Volume) IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907.
GAGE, Lyman J.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905.
GALSTER, Vice-Admiral: Argument for Submarines against "Dreadnoughts."
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
GALVESTON PLAN OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. DES MOINES PLAN OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: GALVESTON.
GAMBLING: Its suppression in Siam.
See (in this Volume) SIAM: A. D. 1905.
GAMBLING: Race-track: Legislation for its Suppression in the State of New York.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1908.
GAMBLING: Legislation for its Suppression in Louisiana and the District of Columbia.
In June, 1908, Louisiana followed the example of New York in passing an Act for the suppression of race-track gambling. There, as in New York, only exactly enough votes to pass the bill were secured; one Senator was present for the final vote in spite of illness which subjected him to the most serious inconvenience, and one Senator had to be sought by messenger with a motor-car and brought by an all-night ride ninety miles through the Louisiana marshes. Within a few months past the gamblers of the race track had been similarly placed under the ban of the law in the District of Columbia.
GAMBLING: Its Suppression in Japan.
The following was reported from Tokio, March 27, 1909:
"A tremendous effort has been made by the race-track element in Japan to induce the government to retract and permit betting upon the tracks, but Marquis Katsura, the premier, has stood firm, and, for another year, at least, the race tracks of the Empire will be without their favorite Pari Mutuel or any other form of betting. This means in Japan practically an end of horse-racing, and necessarily a heavy loss to the stockholders in the various race tracks. The development of racing in Japan was extremely rapid. From a single course established at Yokohama by foreigners, at least half a dozen tracks were in full swing when gambling was prohibited. So flagrant were the cases of fraud and so numerous the examples of ruin brought about by reckless betting that the government suddenly put its foot down upon the whole thing."
GAMBLING: Stock, and other Speculative Dealing.
See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
GAPON, Father George.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.
GARCIA, Lugardo: Deposed President of Ecuador.
See (in this Volume) ECUADOR.
GARFIELD, HARRY A.: President of Williams College.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.: Commissioner of Corporations and Secretary of the Interior.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1909.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.: Investigation of the "Beef Trust," so-called.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
GARFIELD, JAMES R.: Investigation of the Standard Oil Company, and Report.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
GASOLINE ENGINE.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION.
GATUN DAM.
See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909.
GAUNA, JUAN: Revolutionary President of Paraguay.
See (in this Volume) PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.
GAUTSCH, BARON.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
{288}
GAYNOR, WILLIAM J.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D). 1909.
GEAY, Bishop.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.
"GENERAL SLOCUM," Burning of the.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1904.
GEORGE, David Lloyd.
See (in this Volume) LLOYD-GEORGE, DAVID.
GEORGE V., KING OF GREAT BRITAIN: His accession to the Throne.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1910 (MAY).
GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC.
See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
GEORGEI POBIEDONOSETS, MUTINY ON THE.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905 (FEBRUARY-NOVEMBER).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1908. Abolition of the Convict Lease System.
See (in this Volume) CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1908. Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1909. Railroad Strike.
See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1909.
GERMAN EAST AFRICA: Its parts suitable for European Settlement.
See (in this Volume) AFRICA.
GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA.
See (in this Volume) AFRICA: GERMAN COLONIES.
----------GERMANY: Start--------
GERMANY: Industrial Combinations, called Cartels.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: IN GERMANY.
GERMANY: Matters relating to the Use of Alcoholic Liquors.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
GERMANY: State and Municipal Dealings with the Problems of Poverty and Unemployment.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1905. Increase of Population compared with other European Countries.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1870-1905.
GERMANY: A. D. 1898-1904. Rise of Commercial Universities.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1898-1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1900. Comparative Statement of the Consumption of Alcoholic Drink.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901 (December). Claims and Complaints against Venezuela communicated to the United States. The Reply. Interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.
See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA A. D. 1901.
GERMANY: A. D. 1901-1902. Industrial Crisis and succeeding Depression.
See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (March-May). Measures for Germanizing the Polish Provinces of Prussia.
For many years past the Prussian Government had been exerting itself to dilute the Polish population of its Polish provinces, by settling German colonists in them and by buying land from Polish owners. It now assumed a more aggressive attitude of hostility toward that portion of its subjects, as appeared from the temper of a speech by Count Bülow in the Prussian legislature, in January of this year, on what he characterized as "the most important concern of Prussian politics at the present time." German property, be said "was steadily passing into Polish hands," and "Polish lawyers, Polish doctors, Polish contractors, were united in the attempt to thrust the German element into the background." In support of the Count’s position it was averred by others in the debate that not only was Eastern Prussia being made Polish by the rise of a vigorous Polish middle class, but that the Poles already formed 10 per cent of the whole population of Prussia, and were spreading in other parts of the Empire, holding themselves generally apart from their German neighbors and cultivating a national patriotism of their own.
In March the Prussian Government issued orders forbidding the admission of immigrants from Russian Poland into Prussia unless they brought not less than 400 marks of money in hand. Two months later a bill was brought forward appropriating 250,000,000 marks for the purchasing of land in the Polish provinces and for settling German colonists upon it. In connection with this measure it was reported that, since the buying of land for these purposes began, in Posen, the Poles had acquired more from Germans than Germans had acquired from Poles, to the extent of 76,611 acres. Hence more money must be put into the game if it was to be played with effect. The money was voted, though opposition to the policy which makes enemies of the Poles, instead of Germanizing them by friendly treatment, made a show of much strength.
"It was in 1886 that the Iron Chancellor started the fight against the Poles by the expulsion of more than 50,000 Polish labourers, natives of Austria and Russia. This measure not only hit the poor people who were driven away, it also and principally was directed against the Polish owners of large landed estates in the Eastern provinces, who thereafter experienced great difficulty in obtaining the necessary number of farm-hands. This artificial scarcity of labour, together with the great decrease in price of agricultural products which had just taken place, entirely ruined many owners of large estates, and there were therefore a great number who wanted to sell. Bismarck then appointed a Committee of Colonisation to buy Polish estates and parcel them out to German peasant farmers. The necessary funds were provided for by a sum of 100,000,000 marks (equal to £5,000,000) which was placed at the disposal of the Committee.
"At the first moment the Poles were paralysed. What were they to do to ward off such an attack aimed at the poorest among them? But they kept up a good heart and did the only reasonable thing: some wealthy Polish noble men furnished a sum of 3,000,000 marks (equal to £150,000) whereby to fight the mighty Prussian Government, with its Committee of Colonisation and well-nigh inexhaustible financial resources. With this capital of 3,000,000 marks a Polish land bank was started for the purpose of buying estates and reselling them in small holdings to Polish colonists. …
{289}
"It maybe guessed from what is already stated that the Poles have not only been able to maintain their former hold on the land, but actually as peaceable conquerors are marching triumphantly westwards. This is also the case, but we need not restrict ourselves to a guess, the ‘_Statisches Jahrbueh für den Preussischen Staat_’ for 1903 containing ample corroboration of it. According to this official handbook there were parcelled out in the years 1896 to 1901, in the Provinces of Posen and West Prussia, 7,828 estates by German activity, containing 617,200 hectares, and 9,079 estates by Polish activity, containing 213,700 hectares. Although the Germans have parcelled out a very considerably larger area, the Poles have bought and parcelled out a far greater number of properties. The advantage thus obtained is put into an even stronger light when we learn that during the same period by this parcelling out there have been created only 15,941 German farms, with an area of 155,200 hectares, as against 22,289 Polish farms, with an area of 95,800 hectares, for these figures show that during these six years more than 6,000 Polish homes have been established over and above the number of German homes planted on old Polish soil. Moreover the advantage thus gained by the Poles has been increased during the last two years."
_Erik Givskov, Germany and her Subjected Races, Contemporary Review, June, 1905._
GERMANY: A. D. 1902. The Imperial Pension Fund for Veterans.
A statement of the condition of the imperial pension fund for the veterans of the wars of 1864, 1866, and 1870 showed that this fund, which was established by setting apart $138,000,000 out of the war indemnity paid by France, had not for years past been able to meet the claims made upon it out of the income it produced. Recourse was had to appropriations of capital, and the fund would consequently be exhausted in course of time, probably not earlier than 1908 and not later than 1910. All the expenses now covered by the fund would then have to be incorporated in the ordinary estimates for the Empire. The Prussian Minister for War had estimated that about 600,000 veterans of the former wars were still surviving. Allowing 10,000 for those who had died since this estimate was made, and allowing both for the 45,000 who already received a pension and the 12,000 who depended upon the special fund at the disposition of the Emperor, there remained over half a million veterans who as yet received no support from the fund.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902. New Tariff Law and changed Commercial Policy. Attitude toward the United States.
See (in this Volume) TARIFFS, CUSTOMS: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (March-September). Discussion of Alcoholic Drinking.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (June). Renewal of the Triple Alliance.
See (in this Volume) TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902 (August). Curtailment of visits to their native country of Expatriated Germans. Principles asserted by the United States.
See (in this Volume) NATURALIZATION.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902-1903. Concessions for building the Bagdad Railway.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1902-1904. Coercive proceedings against Venezuela concerted with Great Britain and Italy. Settlement of Claims secured. Reference to The Hague. Recognition given to the American Monroe Doctrine.
See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1902-1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903. Elections for the Reichstag. Large gains by the Socialists. Their disability in Prussia. Strong combination supporting the Imperial Government. Brutality in the Army. Prosecutions for Lèse Majesté. State of Colonies.
General elections for the Reichstag, on the 16th of June, 1903, took notable significance from the fact that the representation of the Social Democrats was increased from 58 to 81, and that these figures gave no full measure of their actual gain in strength, since their votes in the election rose in number from 2,107,000 in 1898 to 3,010,771. Had the distribution of seats in the imperial legislature been fair to the towns, instead of favoring the agricultural interests, the Socialists would have gained more. In Berlin they won every seat but one. Nevertheless, in the elections for the lower house of the Prussian Landtag, which took place in November, they could not carry a single seat in the kingdom, owing to the ingenious disfranchisement of the common people which the Prussian constitution accomplishes by its classification of votes. Socialist gains in the Reichstag were made at the expense of the Radicals, from whom it drew votes which expressed, not so much conversion to Socialism as bitterness of opposition to the government. Socialist and Radical representatives together numbered only 111, against 224 in the combination of Conservatives, Clericals, and National Liberals, which gave the Ministry a more than ample support.
"The Social Democrats in Germany are increasing in power at once steadily and rapidly; for, as Herr Bebel declares, every speech the Emperor makes secures for them thousands of adherents, adherents of whom quite a fair percentage now belong to the Intelligentia—are lawyers, professors, journalists, artists, etc. Already the party numbers nearly seven million members; it owns seventy-five journals, of which some thirty are issued daily; and the Berlin branch alone has under its control a revenue of £20,000 a year. At the General Election in 1874, their candidates received 351,671 votes; in 1884, although the Exceptional Laws were then in force, they received 549,990 votes; and in 1893, 1,786,738. Thus, already at that time they were numerically the strongest party in the Empire, as the Ultramontanes received only 1,468,000 votes; and the Conservatives, 1,038,300. At the 1898 General Election no fewer than 2,120,000 votes were recorded for the Socialists; and, at the last Election, that held only the other day, some 3,000,000. Thanks to the Emperor’s speeches, thanks, too, to the new Tariff, Herr Bebel and his friends practically swept everything before them in the first ballot, and captured seats everywhere—five out of the six in Berlin, and, what is much more notable, eighteen out of the twenty-three seats in Saxony, the most ultra-Conservative and clerical of all the States. Were every constituency of equal size in Germany, and thus every vote of equal value, the Socialist Party would already to-day be the dominant party in the Reichstag."
_Edith Sellers, August Bebel (Fortnightly Review, July, 1903)._
{290}
Throughout the year 1903 much excitement of feeling was caused by the many complaints that were brought against officers of the army for brutal and insolent treatment of soldiers. No less than 180 convictions are said to have been obtained in the course of the single year, for cruelty in the use of the power which military rank confers. Several soldiers were found to have committed suicide to escape from the suffering and humiliation of their life in the service. Another excitement of angry discussion came often from the many prosecutions for _lèse-majesté_ that were instituted at this time. In both matters, a potent corrective was applied, without doubt, by the public feeling stirred up.
An official report at the end of the year 1903 showed the total number of Germans in the German colonial possessions in Africa and the South Seas was only 5,125, more than a fourth of the number being officials or in the military force. Since 1884 Germany had expended on its colonies about $75,000,000.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903. Adoption of a new Child Labor Law.
See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS WORKERS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1903 (October). Opposition to Socialism among Workmen.
See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904. Arrangement of Professorial Interchanges between German and American Universities.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904. Rivalry with England in the Persian Gulf.
See (in this Volume) PERSIA: A. D. 1904.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904-1905. Wars with Natives in German African Colonies.
See (in this Volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1904-1905, and 1905.
GERMANY: A. D. 1904-1905. Startling Increase of Labor Conflicts, compared with previous five years.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905. The Emperor’s Statement of his Peace Policy based on Preparation for War.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905. Effect of the Russo-Japanese War on the Triple Alliance.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905. Action with other Powers in forcing Financial Reforms in Macedonia on Turkey.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1906. Raising the Morocco Question. The Kaiser’s Speech at Tangier. Demand for an International Conference. The Conference at Algeciras.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1909. The Spirit of the Struggle between Workmen and Capitalists.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY: A. D. 1905-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906. Extensions of Popular Rights in Würtemburg, Baden, Bavaria, Saxony, Saxe Weimar, and Oldenburg. A Comedy of Election Reform in Prussia.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: GERMANY: A. D. 1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906. Enormous Results derived from Technical Education.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906. German Settlements in Brazil.
See (in this Volume) BRAZIL: A. D. 1906.
GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907. Popular Demand for better Representation in Prussia and elsewhere. School "Strike" in Polish Provinces. Dissatisfaction with Colonial Policy. Refusal in the Reichstag of Increased Appropriations. Dissolution by the Emperor. Result of the Elections. Popular Vote heavily against the Government. Incongruous Coalition or "Bloc" secured by the Chancellor.
The democratic demand in Prussia and in some other German States, for a better representation in the legislatures than is afforded by their odious schemes of class election, became turbulent in the early part of 1906, and was met by strong military preparations for resistance by the Government. Notable demonstrations of popular feeling occurred in several cities, but with proceedings of violence only at Hamburg. Nothing was yielded to the demand; it was simply defied.
The hard Prussian determination to crush out Polish sentiment in the Prussian provinces of the kingdom was relentlessly pursued. Polish children in the schools were required to receive religious instruction in the German language, and punished if they refused to answer questions in that tongue. This provoked a "strike" which took over 100,000 pupils out of the schools. In dealing with it, the Government both fined and imprisoned parents, and even sent children to a reformatory, on the ground that their parents were incapable of giving them proper care.
The affairs of the German colonies in Africa became the subject of most heated and important discussion in the Reichstag during the last months of 1906. Both in German Southwest Africa and in German East Africa the obstinate revolts of native tribes were unsubdued, and the wars in the former were still requiring nearly 15,000 troops. The total German losses in Southwest Africa since the beginning of the outbreak of Hereros, Hottentots, and Witbois, were reported to have been 1750 killed, 900 wounded, 2000 disabled by disease. Popular feeling seemed to be turning very strongly against the whole colonial policy of the Empire. The economic promises of the undertaking were not looked upon as satisfactory. Statistical reports of the German capital invested in all German colonies excepting Kiao-chau, in China, showed a total of 370,000,000 marks ($92,500,000) of which 250,000,000 marks were classed as remunerative, 100,000,000 as "underdevelopment," 12,000,000 as unremunerative, and 8,000,000 as missionary property. The capital value of the total productions of German colonies was estimated at 616,000,000 marks ($154,000,000), half of which came from the Kameruns and Togo; but the revenue was only balancing the cost of administration. Ugly stories, moreover, of barbarity in the treatment of the natives, of official misconduct in other forms, and of private monopolies permitted, were told. On the whole, the colonial situation had created a temper in the Reichstag which was not friendly to the demand of the Government for increased appropriations to that department of administration. Even the Centrum or Clerical party, on which the Ministry counted for the reinforcing of the Conservatives of "the Right," refused the grant, and joined the Liberals, the Socialists, the Polish deputies, and other discontented groups in voting it down. As soon as the vote was announced, Chancellor Bülow arose and read a decree dissolving the House, which the Emperor had signed, in expectation of the defeat, that morning, December 13.
{291}
It is a provision of the Constitution of the German Empire that "in the case of a dissolution of the Reichstag, new elections shall take place within a period of sixty days".
See (in Volume I.) CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.
The elections were appointed accordingly for the 25th of January, 1907. The preparatory canvass, compressed within six weeks, was one of extraordinary vigor, especially on the side of the Government, even the Emperor, as well as the Chancellor, making personal appeals. The efforts of the latter were directed especially against the party of the Center, from its past dependence on which for support the Government was most anxious to escape. These efforts were so little effective, however, that the Centrists gained two seats in the election, carrying 110. The heaviest losers were the Socialists, who, though they gained a quarter of a million of electoral votes, yet secured 36 fewer representatives in the Reichstag than they had before, electing only 43.
Regarded as a _plebiscite_, the election went heavily against the government. That is to say, if the elected Reichstag had been truly representative of the popular vote, the Government could have made no combination of parties in it that would have given it support. As it was, the voters were so unequally represented that Chancellor Bülow was able, by dexterous compromises, to make up a precarious coalition, or "bloc," of Conservatives with National Liberals, and even Radicals, against Socialists, Clericals or Centrists, Poles, etc., which carried his administration through nearly three subsequent years.
Somewhat detailed, the election resulted as follows: The parties which gave subsequent support to the Government for a time secured 215 seats in the Reichstag, gaining 33, thus distributed:
Conservatives 108 (gain 13); National Liberals 56 (gain 5); Radicals 51 (gain 15).
The parties in opposition won 182 seats,—a net loss among them of 33,—thus:
Center 110 (gain 2); Socialists 43 (loss 36); Poles, Alsatians, etc. 29 (gain 1).
The popular vote in the election was divided among these parties as follows:
In the parties of the "bloc"—
Conservatives (including Agrarians, Anti-Semites, etc.) 2,235,000
National Liberals 1,655,000
Radicals 1,226,000
Total for Government 5,116,000
In the Opposition—
Socialists 3,259,000
Center 2,262,000
Poles, etc. 626,000
Total against the Government. 6,147,000
To show what the Socialist vote really indicated, the following statement of the vote cast and the seats won by that party in successive elections of the past twenty years is interesting.
Vote. Seats won. Seats that equal apportionment would have given.
1887 763,000 11 40 1890 1,427,000 35 80 1893 1,787,000 44 92 1898 2,107,000 56 108 1903 3,011,000 79 125 1907 3,259,000 43 116
It is evident that the surface-show of results in the election cannot be taken for a true indication of the prevalent state of mind in the Empire. The Centrists or Clericals, for example, elected more than twice as many deputies as the Socialists, by nearly 1,000,000 votes less. The Socialists polled about 250,000 votes more than in 1903, and yet lost 36 seats. The inequity in the apportionment of representatives which produced this travesty of representation had some beginning, no doubt, in the organization of the imperial system, thirty-six years before; but it had been aggravated by the enormously disproportionate growth of cities ever since. That one constituency in Berlin, with a present population of nearly 700,000, had the same representation as a town of 60,000 people, is doubtless an extreme instance of the inequalities that had come about, but the distortion was universal, and altogether in favor of the country landowning class. The Socialists polled some 250,000 more votes than in 1903, and this was reckoned as an increase substantially commensurate with the general growth of population in four years. Hence socialism may be said to have neither gained nor lost footing in the empire; but hitherto it had been showing rapid gains.
"The Centrum is one of the queerest, most paradoxical parties to be found in any country. It is usually called ultramontane by its enemies because it has its _raison d’être_ in safeguarding the interests of the Catholic Church; yet it has not scrupled at times to disregard the wishes of the Vatican in respect to German internal affairs; and the Vatican, on its part, carefully avoids identifying its interests with those of the Centrum, since it is sure of getting better results through direct diplomatic action at Berlin. ‘The Centrum is an incalculable party,’ said Prince Bülow last winter in a campaign letter; ‘it represents aristocratic and democratic, reactionary and liberal, ultramontane and national policies.’ The party lives upon a reminiscence, its defeat of Bismarck in the _Kulturkampf_; but since that time it has been without any sound reason for its existence. …
See, in Volume II. of this work, GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
"The government’s attempt to break the power of the Centrum had already been tried by Bismarck in 1887 and again by Caprivi in 1893, and it had failed. Bülow’s step was accordingly a display of courage which the country had not been accustomed to expect from him. His breach with the Centrum, however, proved a most popular issue with the non-Catholic electorate; a thrill of exultation was its first response to the dissolution, and this feeling persisted throughout the campaign. Many of the most intelligent voters had hitherto stood aloof from politics owing precisely to the predominance of the Centrum; but they now greeted with enthusiasm the opportunity to extricate the government from its yoke. University professors, artists, and literary men organized an ‘Action Committee’ which plied these stay-at-home _Intellektuellen_ with campaign literature."
_W. C. Dreher, The Year in Germany (Atlantic Monthly, December, 1907)._
{292}
As stated and illustrated above, the election gave the Government no majority of natural supporters. For the carrying of its measures it was left dependent on a coalition of Liberal with Conservative votes. The alliance was an incongruous one, produced by nothing but a common opposition to Socialists and Clericals, and it brought the Liberals into an utterly false position. Within the first year there were signs of a Liberal revolt from it: whereupon the chancellor made known that he would resign if the supporting coalition or "bloc" was not maintained. To avoid such a governmental crisis the Liberals were said to have given promises of continued support.
The attitude thus assumed by the German chancellor toward the Reichstag is practically that of an English prime minister toward the House of Commons, and it creates a precedent which must make it very difficult, if not impossible, for imperial ministers to recover the defiantly independent posture of former times. Without verbal amendment, perhaps, but incidentally and informally, by force of circumstances, the absolutist features of the German constitution are manifestly dropping away.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907. Statistics of Population. Birth Rate and Death Rate.
"The official report upon public health in Prussia for the year 1907 has just been published [May, 1909], and includes the latest available statistics regarding the movement of the population of Germany. The figures confirm the view, which is not always admitted, that a satisfactory decrease in the death-rate is still accompanied by a persistently unsatisfactory decrease in the birth-rate.
"Prussia may be regarded, roughly, as comprising two-thirds of the German Empire. The population of the empire on December 1, 1905, was 60,641,278, and the population of Prussia was 37,293,324. On January 1, 1907, the population of Prussia was 37,908,104. During the year 1907 the excess of births over deaths was 578,687, as compared with 595,942 in 1906, 514,941 in 1905, 562,387 in 1904, and 527,263 in 1903. Although the Prussian figures are not always a sufficient index, it may be estimated that the excess of births over deaths in the whole empire during 1907 did not exceed 900,000. The comparatively satisfactory total increase of population is due to a decline in the death-rate to 17.96 per 1,000 of the population—the lowest rate ever recorded. In Silesia, in Hohenzollern, and in both West and East Prussia the rate exceeds 20 per 1,000. In the city of Berlin, on the other hand, the rate is 15.62, and in Berlin (outside the city) only 14.79. For the most part a high death-rate is set off by a high birth-rate. In Westphalia and the Rhine Province alone is a high birth-rate accompanied by a death-rate below the average. As regards ages at which death occurred, the statistics show a considerable decrease in infant mortality, although deaths under the age of one year were 31.14 per cent., or nearly one-third, of the whole number of deaths. While the death-rate was in 1907 the lowest ever recorded in Prussia, the birth-rate was the most unsatisfactory. The total number of births was less by 10,621 in 1907 than in 1906, and was actually less by 1,058 than in the year 1901. The birth-rate per 1,000 inhabitants declined to 33.23, as compared with 34.00 in 1906, 33.77 in 1905, and 35.04 in 1904."
_Berlin Correspondence London Times, May 27, 1909._
The same correspondent reported, June 19, a further publication of statistics, which prove the Prussian returns, previously given, "to have been a fairly accurate index to the movement of population in the whole Empire. There is a marked decline in the birth-rate, which fell to 33.2 per 1,000 inhabitants, as compared with 34.08 in 1906. The death-rate fell to 18.98, as compared with 19.20 in 1906. The excess of births over deaths was 882,624, as compared with 910,275 in 1906. The excess, however, of births over deaths (natural increase of population) was greater in 1907 than in any previous year except 1906 and 1902 (902,243). The decline in the birth-rate, which stood at 41.64 in 1877, 38.33 in 1887, and 37.17 in 1897, as compared with 33.2 in 1907, as now attributable to a falling off in the number of births in every part of the Empire except Westphalia, and in Westphalia the number of births is not quite keeping pace with the total growth of population. The decrease in the number of births in the whole Empire in 1907 was 23,766, or 1.1 per cent. In Saxony the decrease was 3 per cent., and East Prussia, West Prussia, and Pomerania show about the same percentage. As regards the death-rate, which stood at 28.05 in 1877, 25.62 in 1887, and 22.52 in 1897, as compared with 18.98 in 1907, there is a steady decline in the infant mortality rate in all parts of the Empire, but especially in large towns."
GERMANY: A. D. 1907. Rapid Decrease of Agricultural Population.
"The results of a census of occupations, taken in December of 1907, has just been published and shows a remarkably rapid shifting of the population of Prussia from agriculture to industry and trade. The number of persons engaged in industry and trade was increased by 1,500,000 from 1895 to 1907, while the number engaged in agriculture was decreased by 500,000. This means that the non-farming population rose from 50 to 66 per cent. in twelve years."
_Press Report from Berlin, February, 1909._
GERMANY: A. D. 1907. Financial Situation.
See (in this Volume) FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907 (November). Treaty with Great Britain, France, Norway, and Russia, guaranteeing the Integrity of Norway.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1908. The Scandals connected with the Trials of Editor Harden.
Maximilian Harden, editor of the _Zukunft_, made attacks on the character of Prince Eulenburg and Count Kuno von Moltke, in 1907, on account of which the latter brought a libel suit against him. "The charges not only affected the character of the persons accused, but affirmed that they had constituted a kind of kitchen cabinet, or ‘Camarilla,’ and had again and again given the Emperor misleading information and had exerted a very unfortunate influence over him. The case aroused intense interest throughout Germany, and indeed throughout Europe; and in spite of the unspeakable nature of the charges, the testimony was widely reprinted, and much more frankly, it may be said in passing, than would have been possible for the yellowest journalism in this country. Harden was acquitted, and the plaintiff was sentenced to pay the cost of the suit. {293} Taking into account the exalted political position of the accused, and the great respect in which the Imperial court is held in Germany, this action of a German judge was regarded as sustaining the high character of the German courts for independence. A criminal suit was then brought by the public prosecutor, at the instigation of Count von Moltke and his associates, on the charge that Harden had committed an offense against public morals. On this trial the same witnesses appeared as on the former trial, but a great change had taken place in their memory of the transactions to which they had testified on the first trial. They either contradicted or repudiated their former statements to such a degree that their evidence was discredited and Harden’s defense was broken down. Harden was found guilty and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. What changed the attitude of the witnesses is a matter of guesswork. It has been charged that their change of front was due to very powerful influences brought to bear upon them."
_The Outlook, January 18, 1908._
An appeal was taken by Harden to a higher court. Official investigations which followed the trials resulted in the court-martialing of Count Lynar and General Hohenau, the former of whom was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment, while the latter was acquitted. In May, 1908, Prince Eulenburg was arrested on charges of immorality, but appears to have been so shattered in health that he could not be brought to trial. Substantially, Editor Harden has been vindicated.
GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1909. Opposition to the "Navy Fever." Views of Herr von Holstein and Admiral Galster.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908. Maintenance of the "Bloc." Two good measures of legislation. Revision of the Bourse Law and the law regulating meetings and association. More vigorous Germanizing of Polish Prussia.
"Although many members of the Bloc thought its enemies justified in predicting that it would speedily break down, the combination did hold together during the past session. It did more; it passed at least two good laws. It revised the Bourse Law in a manner fairly satisfactory to the financial community, so that swindling speculators will henceforth find it less easy to get the sanction of the courts for repudiating debts incurred in stock operations. Another law regulates for the first time on a national basis the right of assembly and association, which had hitherto been in the hands of the individual states. It is interesting to note that this is another important step in the centralizing tendency in Germany. …
"The measure foreshadowed in my last article for the forcible acquisition of Polish estates was duly laid before the Diet. The discussion of the bill brought out intense antagonisms, and the line of cleavage between the parties was not along Bloc lines. The Radicals joined with the ‘Centrum’ in opposing the dispossession of the Poles. As finally passed, the bill gives the Government the right to acquire, under the law of eminent domain, a maximum of 174,000 acres in the provinces of Posen and West Prussia, and to borrow $65,000,000 for this purpose and for further prosecuting settlement work. The final reading of the bill in the House of Lords stirred that usually somnolent body to a remarkable degree. The vote there showed how deeply, and on what uncommon lines, this radical measure had divided the minds of the people. While most of the titled lords of the land, including many intimate friends of the Kaiser, voted against dispossession, the university professors and mayors of liberal municipalities voted mostly for it."
_W. C. Dreher, The Year in Germany (Atlantic, January, 1909)._
In his advocacy of this measure Prince Bülow proclaimed the reasons for it without reserve. "Can we " he asked, "do without the two Polish provinces, one of which begins within 75 miles of Berlin? That is the crucial point of the situation; there is no doubt about it. Our eastern provinces constitute the point of least resistance in the public body. We dare not wait until the grave disease, with its probable irreparable consequences, sets in." An English view of the measure is presented in the following:
"Prince Bülow is only developing the policy of Bismarck, who perceived, as Frederick the Great did before him, that the possession of Posen was vital to the Prussian State, and who held that the surest way to secure that province was to plant German settlers on Polish land. The strategical importance of Posen has been a cardinal article in the political and military creed of all Prussian statesmen and soldiers for generations. Posen is of far more importance to Prussia than is Ireland to Great Britain, and the true motives which have induced Prussian statesmen to make the agrarian proposals embodied in Prince Bülow’s Bill are to be found not in their comparatively trifling difficulties with Liberals, Radicals, and Revolutionists at home, but in the foreign policy of the Court of Berlin. …
"That portion of Poland which was given to Prussia by the Congress of Vienna has been administered by that Power in accordance with the spirit of Frederick the Great. The object of Frederick was to develop the intellectual and material resources of his Polish possessions, making them an integral part of the Prussian monarchy, and gradually eliminating all recollections on the part of the Poles of their having once been an independent nation. This policy to be successful should be carried out by officials with intellects as clear, if not as powerful, as that possessed by Frederick himself. The Prussian officials, however, who have administered Posen since 1815, have not always risen to the height of their mission. Edward Henry v. Flottwell, who was charged with the government of the province from 1830 to 1840, alone understood the conditions of success. He knew that in politics it is as mischievous as it is futile to endeavour to reconcile the irreconcilable. The efforts made in that direction after 1815 strengthened the revolutionary spirit in Posen. On the retirement of Flottwell, Frederick William IV. tried again to propitiate Polish national feeling, with the result that the irreconcilable forces grew in strength, and in March, 1848, the Poles were the driving-power of the Revolutionary movement in Berlin. …
"As far as international life is concerned the true significance of the Polish question is in the relations it has created between the three great Northern Powers. Those between Prussia and Russia have in consequence become extremely intimate. At the present moment that intimacy is as great, if not greater, than at any previous time. {294} Besides the German Ambassador at St. Petersburg and the Russian Ambassador at Berlin, there is a German military officer at St. Petersburg, and a Russian military officer at Berlin, who are especially charged to convey intimate communications between the Czar and the Kaiser. In spite of the alliance between Russia and France, which was concluded by the former Power, mainly for financial reasons, and which has never much disturbed the equanimity of Berlin, it is quite certain that in no conceivable circumstances will there be a real breach between Prussia and Russia. The Government of the Kaiser must and will make every possible concession to Russia rather than provoke a serious breach. This is the true inwardness of the policy as regards Poland. As long as Posen continues Polish Germany will be largely dependent on Russia."
_Rowland Blennerhassett, The Significance of the Polish Question (Fortnightly Review, March, 1908)._
Dr. Dillon, who reviews European politics regularly for the _Contemporary Review_, says with positiveness that the Polish expropriation bill was passed "against the better judgment of press, bar, gentry, political parties and people." He cites it as an illustration of the absolute domination under which the Prussian legislature is held, and maintains that national feeling and opinion have, practically, no influence over Prussian policy and no weight in the conduct of Prussian affairs. Concerning motives behind the Polish expropriation, this well-informed writer reports it to be a prevalent belief in Austrian and other political circles that the bill was driven through as a military measure, in anticipation of some future hostile alliance between Russia and Great Britain. It seems to be the belief that the Kaiser, if not his ministers, is haunted with the expectation of a war to be fought with those powers in combination, and is determined that, if a British fleet in the Baltic is ever coöperating with a Russian army, there shall be a population of patriotic Germans instead of disaffected Prussian Poles between them and Berlin.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908. The leading motive of German Foreign Policy officially stated. The Principle of the "Open Door." Colonial Expansion unnecessary.
"Usually it has been stated that Germany has an annual increase of population of 800,000, that these new masses must be supported by manufactories, and that the German Empire will thus be forced, with or against its will, into expansion, in order to procure the raw material and to establish the requisite markets for its industrial growth. The annexation of Holland and Flemish Belgium, containing Antwerp, is described as a mere preliminary necessary to make possible such measures of expansion. Germany must enlarge its maritime basis, and should have control of the Lower Rhine and its harbors. To the alien, these arguments may seem plausible enough. Whoever is acquainted with existing conditions, however, knows that, though seemingly plausible, this is not the truth.
"In the first place, it is not true that colonial expansion is a necessity for Germany, resulting from its industrial growth. The impetus given to German commerce and German manufactures is to be ascribed far more to the increase in the buying capacity of other nations—England, France, Russia or America—than to all the German colonies combined. Germany needs no colonies; what she wants is merely free competition on all seas, the open door, and the right to cooperate freely on an equal footing with all other commercial and industrial nations, in opening up new and as yet unopened districts and markets. Hence the principle of the open door is the leading motive of the foreign policy pursued by Germany. It is the red thread that winds itself through the Eastern-Asiatic, the Oriental and the Moroccan policy of the German Empire. The high quality of all German products obviates the necessity of unfair preferences accruing to political power. All they need is a fair chance to compete on equal terms with other countries. The world is large enough, and rich enough, in still dormant possibilities, to admit of a pacific co-operation by all nations in this great work."
_Baron von Speck-Sternburg, Imperial German Ambassador to the United States, The Truth about German Expansion (North American Review, March, 1908)._
GERMANY: A. D. 1908. Amendment to Industrial Code. Hours of Labor.
See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908. Remarkable Decrease of Emigration.
See (in this Volume) IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908. North Sea and Baltic Agreements.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (January). Institution of Juvenile Courts.
See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (April). Passage of Law defining for the Empire at large the Rights of Association and Public Meeting.
The rights of association and public meeting were determined for the Empire at large by an enactment of the Reichstag, for the first time, in April, 1908. Hitherto each State had regulated these fundamental matters of political freedom by legislation of its own, some with considerable latitude, and others, especially in the North German States, with a narrow restraint, subject, in an intolerable degree, to the discretion or will of the police. The national law now brought into force, superseding the local legislation, enlarged greatly the liberty of citizens to associate themselves for legitimate purposes and to hold public meetings. An attempt to forbid the use of any foreign language at public meetings was defeated; but public speaking in other languages was sanctioned only in districts where 60 per cent, of the population use the foreign tongue. This does not apply, however, to international congresses in Germany, or to meetings of electors for the election of legislative representatives, Federal or State; and the States have some privilege of modifying the rule.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (April). Treaty with Denmark, England, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden, for maintenance of the Status Quo on the North Sea.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1907-1908.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908 (November). Excitement in Europe over a published Interview with the Emperor.
What may fairly be called a "row" in the European world, and of the greatest liveliness in Germany itself, arose, early in November, 1908, from the appearance in the London _Telegraph_ of a reported interview with the Emperor by "a representative Englishman who long since passed" it was said, "from public into private life." {295} The writer characterized it as "a calculated indiscretion," which was expected to prove of great public service, by removing misconceptions of the Emperor’s feelings toward the English. The effect produced by the publication left no doubt of its indiscretion, but proved likewise that it had been very badly miscalculated. In his anxiety to convince the English of his friendliness to them the talkative Emperor made known that France and Russia, during the Boer War, had invited him to join them in a demand on England to stop it, and claimed credit for having prepared for the British army in that war a plan of campaign, which could be found at Windsor Castle, and which was on lines that Lord Roberts had followed in his subsequent operations to a large extent.
How flattering this story was to English pride, and how pleasing to the Governments of Russia and France, might be imagined very easily; but it would not have been so easy to anticipate the outbreak of anger that it exploded in Germany. The Empire itself was surprised by that. It had been submissive to so many "indiscretions" of speech from its Kaiser that it could hardly have expected to be moved excitedly by anything from the imperial lips. But, with the indiscretion in this case, there seemed to be a reckless interference with the appointed organs provided for dealing with foreign affairs, doing mischief to the whole system of governmental administration. This proved, however, to be less the fact than appeared. According to subsequent explanations, the Emperor had sent the manuscript of the interview (which embodied the substance of a number of conversations with several Englishmen) to the Chancellor, Prince von Bülow, for his judgment on it, and the latter, not recognizing its character, had not read it, but passed it to a subordinate, who simply verified the facts stated in it and returned it to the Emperor as approved.
This revelation convicted the Chancellor very clearly of a careless performance of duty in his office, and laid on him a large share of responsibility for the mischievous publication. He offered his resignation to the Emperor and it was refused. Constitutionally he was responsible only to the Emperor; the Reichstag could not hold him to account, in any practical way, nor did it attempt to do so; but there was such plain speaking in the Chamber from all parties, Conservative, Liberal, and Radical, during two days of debate, November 11 and 12, as never had been heard in Germany before. Whatever the language of the Constitution might be, it was made known beyond a question, then and in a later discussion, that Germany expected the crowned head of its Government to conduct himself—in the words of one speaker—as "the first servant of the State," preserving his own august irresponsibility only by acting and speaking in public matters, through ministers responsible to the elected representatives of the people. "We wish," said Herr Bassermann, leader of the National Liberals "so far as it is possible, for trustworthy guarantees against the intervention of the personal regime," and before he sat down he declared with the approval of the House; "It is the desire of my friends that the Kaiser should be thoroughly informed with regard to these proceedings. … Although fully convinced that even these utterances of our Kaiser sprang from his deep anxiety for the welfare of his people, we must give expression to the earnest desire that the Kaiser will, in his political activity, impose upon himself the reserve proper to a Constitutional ruler."
Dr. Wiener, for the Radicals, corroborated the previous speaker by declaring that the article in question had filled the entire nation with embitterment, consternation, and rage, because it was felt that "confidence in our trustworthiness had been shaken. Everywhere it had been recognised that Germany’s prestige had received a severe blow." The trend of his speech was to show that the so-called "interview" had been interpreted in Germany as a crass specimen of personal regime which was distasteful to the nation in its entirety. Constitutional Government was what was wanted: the Minister, not the Sovereign, should be responsible to the people.
Prince Hatzfeld, of the Imperial party, who stands in great favor with the Kaiser, impressed upon the House that the Chancellor and not the wearer of the crown was the responsible personage in the State. Prince von Bülow, speaking on the first day of debate, declared that grave injury had been caused by the publication in the _Daily Telegraph_. He added that immediately on reading the article in question, as to the disastrous consequences of which he could not for a moment be in doubt, he sent in his resignation, taking upon himself full responsibility for the mistakes which had been made in handling the manuscript. And he followed this up with the following significant statement: "Gentlemen! recognition that the publication of these utterances has not in England had the effect anticipated by his Majesty the Emperor, and, on the other hand, in Germany has called forth great excitement and painful regret, will—this firm conviction I have won in these sad days—induce his Majesty the Kaiser in future to impose upon himself, even in his private conversations, that reserve which is indispensable to a consistent policy and to the authority of the Crown. If that were not so, neither I nor any of my successors could accept responsibility for it."
Proposals of amendment to the Constitution, carrying such ministerial responsibility into the fundamental law, were advocated without success; but the unwritten constitution which public opinion moulds slowly in every country took a notable shaping from these debates.
For some time the Emperor was very silent, and kept himself unusually retired. Having occasion to speak publicly at Berlin on the 21st of November, when the centennial of the formation of the City Council was celebrated, it was reported that "Prince von Bülow stepped forward and impressively handed him a printed sheet," from which, contrary to his custom, he read his remarks.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908-1909. Attempted Reform of Imperial Finance and its Defeat. Breaking of Chancellor Bülow’s "Bloc" in the Reichstag by the Government’s project of New Taxes. Triumph of the Agrarian Interests in renewed Coalition with the Center. Resignation of Chancellor Bülow. His successor.
Expenditure outrunning income from year to year—thanks mainly to the burden of army and navy—with deficits made good by loans, mortgaging the future in an ever-growing public debt, had forced the Government, in 1908, to a resolution, not that the imperial expenditure on armament must be cut down, but that imperial taxation must be increased. {296} The Governments of the Federated States, which are directly represented, as such, in the Federal Council, were assenting parties to this conclusion, and the resulting measure was regarded, in all the proceedings which followed, as emanating essentially from that senatorial branch of the Parliament of the Empire.
Preparatory to the undertaking, a new Minister of Finance, Herr Reinhold Sydow, was brought into office, and early in November, 1908, he submitted to the Reichstag a bill providing for new taxes that were estimated to add 500,000,000 marks ($125,000,000) yearly to the Treasury of the Empire. The scheme included an extended and augmented inheritance tax, new methods of deriving revenue from spirits and tobacco, added excise duties on beer and bottled still wines, taxes on electricity, gas, advertisements, etc. The bill went to the Finance Committee of the Reichstag and developed there, during the next five months, an antagonism of class interests, and consequently of parties, which completely shattered the "bloc," or coalition, which Chancellor Bülow had contrived to organize in 1906 for the support of his administration. The proposed new inheritance tax or death duty was especially obnoxious to the land-owning classes,—the agrarian core of German conservatism,—and no influence from the Government could save it from being stifled in their hands. Other oppositions were rallied against the proposals which touched spirits, tobacco, electricity, gas, and newspaper advertisements, and by the 20th of March, 1909, it was known that the Finance Committee had rejected or would reject all but about one-fifth of the new taxation which the Government and the Federal Council claimed from it.
A month later the Government signified its abandonment of a present expectation, at least, of financial reform, by inviting subscriptions to a fresh loan. The budget wrangle in Committee went on, however, until the 13th of May, when the National-Liberals, the Radicals, and the Socialists of the Committee withdrew from it, the Chairman, Herr Paasche, a National-Liberal, resigning, refusing to take any further part in proceedings which they wholly disapproved. This left the Conservatives, the Center or Clerical party, and the Poles, who seem to have practically organized an opposition "bloc," which proceeded to frame a budget on entirely different lines from that which the Government desired, one of its contemplated features being a tax on purchases and sales of stocks. On the 18th of May the Reichstag was adjourned until the 15th of June, and a month of rest from the controversy was enjoyed.
When the Reichstag reassembled the Government laid before it several proposals of taxes to be substituted for those which the Committee had rejected. Inheritance taxation was still prominent in the revised scheme, but considerably modified in its range and reduced in productiveness. With it went an extensive readjustment of stamp duties, applied to bonds, stock certificates, transfers of real estate, bills and checks and a tax on policies of fire insurance. This revised budget of additions to the Imperial revenue was estimated to yield about $35,000,000. It fared no better than the original proposals of the Government. A week after its introduction the Reichstag adopted the tax on securities (called the _Cotierungssteuer_) which the Government disapproved, and on the 24th of June it rejected the new inheritance tax bill, by 194 votes to 186, the minority being composed of National-Liberals, Radicals and Socialists, with a few from the Conservative side. On the next day, rumors of the intended resignation of Prince Bülow were checked by the publication of the following semi-official statement:
"Prince von Bülow will remain as chancellor of the empire. The Reichstag will not be dissolved. The chancellor holds that his duty is to be in accord with the conviction of the Federal Council of the necessity to bring about the passage of a taxation measure, but with the exclusion therefrom of duties on stock transfers, the output of the grain mills, and the exports of coal. Financial reform must now come into operation. What the chancellor will do after this has been accomplished is his personal affair."
Nevertheless, it was made known on the 27th that the Chancellor had offered his resignation to the Emperor, who had declined to accept it, pointing out "that in the unanimous conviction of the Federal Governments the early achievement of finance reform is a vital question for the internal welfare of the Empire, as well as for its position in relation to foreign countries. In the circumstances he could not take into closer consideration the fulfilment of Prince Bülow’s wish to be relieved of his offices until the labours for the reform of the Imperial finances should have produced a result of a positive kind which the Federal Governments could accept." To this statement there was added, semi-officially, next day, the following: "Subject to the rejection of those taxation proposals which would be injurious to the general interest, and therefore impossible of acceptance by the Federal Governments, the Imperial Chancellor was unwilling not to comply with the Emperor’s desire. Nevertheless, having regard to the political development which was manifested by the division on the inheritance tax, he is irrevocably resolved to retire from office immediately after the accomplishment of finance reform."
Then followed negotiations with the Conservative-Clerical majority now fully in control of the Reichstag, the Government yielding step by step, and the Federal Council coming openly into the management of the negotiations, the Chancellor falling into the background, and waiting only for permission to lay his office down. In the resulting budget of new taxes there was very little saved of the "financial reform" which the Federal Council and the Chancellor had undertaken to introduce. On most points the land-owners had their way. The character and effect of the legislation accomplished in the early days of July were described thus by a Berlin correspondent of the New York _Evening Post_, who wrote on the 11th of the month:
"The _leitmotif_ of the bill is that property shall be protected and industry shall pay. Even on the reckoning of the new majority the ratio between indirect and direct taxation in the scheme is as 14 to 34, but in reality property comes off far better. … The large land-owners will not be hit at all. The only tax that could touch them to any appreciable extent is the stamp duty on transfers of real estate. {297} But the remedy lies in their hands; they need not sell, and, in any event, of the $10,000,000 at which the returns are estimated only $1,250,000 at most falls on landed property. If the spirits bounty to be paid by the Government to the spirit distilleries (which are in agrarian hands) is set against this sum, it will be seen that the agrarians do not only _not_ suffer, but net a profit of some ten millions of dollars. Most of all it is the consuming classes that are the victims of the new majority's taxation proposals. Every cup of coffee, the staple nourishment of the German workingman’s family, every cup of tea, every glass of beer and schnapps, the staple refreshment of the German workingman, will cost more, the total sum to be derived from these sources reaching $54,250,000, which, with the duty on the poor man’s cigar, amounts to over $60,000,000. Adding to this 30 per cent. for the increase in the middleman’s prices, the total burden of the consuming classes reaches over $80,000,000, or an increase of $7.50 on the workingman’s household expenses a year."
On the 13th of July the session of the Reichstag was closed by Imperial decree. On the 14th the following announcement appeared in the _Imperial Gazette:_ "His Majesty the Emperor and King has been graciously pleased to accede to the request of the Imperial Chancellor, the President of the Ministry, and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prince Bülow, to be relieved of his offices, and has conferred upon him the High Order of the Black Eagle with brilliants. His Majesty has been graciously pleased to appoint Dr. von Bethmann-Hollweg, Secretary of State for the Interior, Minister of State, to be Imperial Chancellor, President of the Ministry, and Minister for Foreign Affairs." Herr Sydow now resigned from the secretaryship of the Imperial Treasury, and was made Prussian Minister of Commerce, in place of Herr Delbruck, who succeeded the new Chancellor as "Imperial Secretary of State for the Interior and representative of the Imperial Chancellor." Herr Sydow’s place in the department of the Imperial Treasury was taken by Herr Wermuth.
GERMANY: A. D. 1908-1909 (September-May). The Casablanca Incident and its Arbitration at The Hague. Friendly Agreement with France.
See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1907-1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909. Accelerated Naval Construction. Excitement in Great Britain. Parliamentary Debates.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909. Extent of Trade Unionism.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909. Proposed Amendments of the System of Workingmen’s Insurance.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY, THE PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS; also, LABOR PROTECTION: ACCIDENT AND SICKNESS INSURANCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (January). Rejection of Proposed Reforms of the Elective Franchise in Prussia.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: PRUSSIA.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (April). Economic Conditions. Gain of Fifteen Years in National Wealth. Increased Cost of Living. Diminished Savings. Check on the Overcrowding of Towns.
A report by the British Consul-General on the trade and commerce of the consular district of Frankfort-on-the-Main for the year ending April 30, 1909, gave the following items of interest touching general economic conditions of the year:
Early in 1909 the national wealth of Germany, which had been estimated at 220,000,000,000 marks 15 years ago, was estimated to have reached 350,000,000,000 marks—i. e., an increase of 59 per cent. in half a generation.
"The cheapening of all manufactured commodities in comparison with the price they had reached during the end of the boom has failed until now, in spite of an unprecedented supply of cash, because the development which had taken place behind the wall of protection—the system of syndication—has killed free competition at home and has unduly raised the cost of the raw material needed by the finishing industries. The agricultural protection as well as the industrial has, moreover, increased the cost of living and has narrowed down the margin of profit which might have been used like a safety valve for reductions of price to revive trade at home or facilitate competition abroad. Syndication and protection have in fact combined to deprive German manufacture of that elastic cheapening power which ought chiefly to revive trade during the period succeeding a commercial high tide. At the same time the increased protection of the home market has admittedly rendered foreign markets more difficult for the German manufacturer."
See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES, &C.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (September). Speech of the Emperor on the Pride of his Subjects in "the Game of War."
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: MILITARY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (September). Latest Statistics of the Social Democratic Party.
See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM: GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (October-December). Socialist Gains in By-elections, etc. Changed relations between Parties and the Government.
Several by-elections for the Reichstag and elections to the diets of Saxony and Baden in these months showed somewhat startling gains for the Socialists. In the Saxon Diet they won 25 seats, whereas in the late chamber, elected in 1907, they had held but 1. Both the Conservatives and the National Liberals were losers in the contest, the former most heavily. The Radicals shared a few of the gains. In the Baden Diet the Socialist gain was 8. At a by-election in one of the Brandenburg divisions the Socialists increased their vote by more than a thousand.
The Reichstag was reopened by the Emperor on the 30th of November. On the organization of the House, Dr. Herman S. Paasche, National Liberal, declined election as Second Vice-President, stating that the National-Liberal party had decided unanimously not to accept office in the reorganization of the House. The Imperial party, or free Conservatives, also declined to take part in the organization, while the Radicals went so far as to decide that they would cast blank votes. These three parties are determined to place the full responsibility for the coming legislation upon the German Conservatives and Clericals.
{298}
This new attitude of parties, as one side of the sequence to the dissolution of the bloc of the past two years, and to the retirement of Chancellor Bülow, was responded to most appositely on the side of the Government by the new Imperial Chancellor, Dr. von Bethmann Hollweg, when he made his first speech in that capacity to the Reichstag, December 9th. In not many words he made it plain that the Imperial Government’s policy now was "to stand aloof from parties and groups of parties; in short, that the government of Germany was not a government by party. Governmental measures would be submitted to the Reichstag for adoption, but he was not disposed to define the constellation of parties which, he thought, would support these measures. The recent political crisis over the taxation bill had made no change in German institutions, he continued. Radicalism strove to divide all Germany into two political camps, but the existence of such a dualism was a fiction devised for party objects. It could not contribute to the sound development of the country for every proposal to be classified as either radical or reactionary. Germany, the chancellor affirmed, needed continuous and steady policies, both at home and abroad, to satisfy the people to the end that their work, either material or intellectual, might be undisturbed by disorders or experiments." His words in part were as follows:
"As decidedly as the separate parties have ever refused, and still refuse, to be Government parties—and I personally can thoroughly understand it—so little will a Government in Germany ever be able to be a party Government. With the difficulties which arise from this fact every German statesman has had to fight, and in this relation of things, which is historic and based upon the peculiarity of our party life and of our State institutions, the last crisis has altered nothing whatever. I do not shut my eyes," continued the Chancellor, "to the excitement of party politics which pervades the country." But he believed that there were wide circles of the German people who did not wish to live permanently on political excitement and recrimination. "What our people desires in the first place is not to be disturbed in its actual work, whether economic or intellectual, either at home or abroad, in the markets of the world, by unrest or experiments. It wishes to be supported and encouraged by a policy of continuity and stability at home and abroad." As in the past there had never been a single party which had given its stamp to German policy, so all parties must work together in the future. The question was not one of "actual collaboration" or of nervous anxiety about the creation of a temporary Parliamentary majority, but of the conviction that there was an obligation to work imposed by the community upon each of its representatives, and the certainty that this obligation would survive the present turmoil.
It is an interesting experiment which the new Chancellor is venturing on; but it seems to require a Bismarck in the Chancellor’s shoes.
GERMANY: A. D. 1909 (December). The Mannesmann Concession Question.
See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1909.
GERMANY: A. D. 1910 (March). Demand of the Reichstag for Ministerial Responsibility.
On the 15th of March, 1910, it was reported from Berlin that the Reichstag had adopted a motion, made by a Socialist member, demanding the introduction of a bill making the chancellor responsible to the Reichstag for his official acts and also extending his responsibility to cover all of the acts and documents made by the Emperor, for which responsibility he shall be answerable in a court of law.
[Transcriber's note: The First World War was fought from July 28, 1914 to November 11, 1918, between the Allies (France, the United Kingdom, Russia, the United States, Italy, and Japan) and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria).]
----------GERMANY: End--------
GHENT: A. D. 1900. Municipal organization of Insurance against Unemployment.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: UNEMPLOYMENT.
GHOSE, Dr. Rash Bihari.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
GIBBONEY, D. Clarence.
See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: PHILADELPHIA.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of Andrew Carnegie:
To Building for the Bureau of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS, BUREAU OF.
For Court House and Library for Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1903.
To Foundation for the Improvement of Teaching.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1908.
To Hero Funds.
See (in this Volume) CARNEGIE HERO FUNDS.
To Institute at Pittsburg.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
To Institution of Washington.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION: CARNEGIE INSTITUTION.
To Scottish Universities.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: SCOTLAND: A. D. 1901.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of George Crocker for Cancer Research.
See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: CANCER RESEARCH.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of Edwin Ginn to Fund for the Peace Propaganda.
See (in this Volume) War, The Revolt against: A. D. 1909.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of Mrs. Harriman and others to the State of New York for a State Park on the Hudson.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909-1910.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of Miss Anna T. Jeanes to Schools for Southern Negroes.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of Mr. John Stewart Kennedy.
Nearly $30,000,000, out of an estate valued close to $60,000,000, was left to public institutions by John Stewart Kennedy, banker and railroad builder, who died early in November, 1909. The remainder of the estate was bequeathed to relatives and employés. The larger bequests to religious, educational, and benevolent institutions were the following:
Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States $2,250,000
Board of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 2,250,000
Board of Church Erection Fund of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 2,250,000
Presbyterian Hospital in New York City 2,250,000
New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations 2,250,000
Metropolitan Museum of Art 2,250,000
Columbia University 2,250,000
Church Extension Committee of the Presbytery of New York 1.500,000
Trustees of Robert College, Constantinople, Turkey 1,500,000
University of the City of New York 750,000
{299}
American Bible Society 750,000
Presbyterian Board of Aid for Colleges 750,000
Charity Organization Society of the City of New York for its School of Philanthrophy, "to which I have already given an endowment of $250,000, or to the said school if the same be separately incorporated at the time of my death," 750,000
United Charities, a corporation of the State of New York 1,500,000
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of Letchworth Park to the State of New York.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE; A. D. 1907.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of Rhodes Scholarships.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: Of John D. Rockefeller to the General Education Board.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1909.
GIFTS AND BEQUESTS, Notable: The Russell Sage Foundation.
See (in this Volume) SOCIAL BETTERMENT. UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907.
From Mrs. Russell Sage to Yale University.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1910.
Of Mrs. Russell Sage to the U. S. Government.
See (in this Volume) Constitution Island.
GINN, EDWIN: Great Gift to Fund for the Peace Propaganda.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
GIOLITTI, SIGNOR GIOVANNI: Minister of the Interior and then Premier of the Italian Government.
See (in this Volume) ITALY: A. D. 1901, 1903, and after.
GIORGIS, GENERAL DE: Command of Gendarmerie in Macedonia.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.
GLADSTONE, HERBERT J.: Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
First Governor-General of United South Africa.
See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1908-1909.
GOBAT, ALBERT.
See (in this Volume) Nobel Prizes.
GOETHALS, LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GEORGE W.: Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal.
See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909.
GOLGI, CAMILLO.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
GOLUCHOWSKI, Count.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
GOMEZ, José Miguel: President of Cuba.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1906-1909.
GOMEZ, General Maximo: Military head of the last Cuban Rising against Spain.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1902.
GOMEZ, General: Acting President of Venezuela.
See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D. 1905-1906, and 1907-1909.
GOMPERS, Samuel: Sentence for alleged Violation of an Injunction.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908-1909.
GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE, at Khartoum.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: EGYPT.
GOREMYKIN, Ivan Logginovich.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1906.
GORGAS, Dr. W. C., United States of America: In charge of the Sanitation of the Panama Canal Zone.
See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: PANAMA CANAL.
GOVERNORS’ CONFERENCE, on Conservation of Natural Resources.
See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.
"GRAFT," so called, in Municipal Government.
See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY PROJECT.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1903.
GRAY, Justice George: On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.
GREAT BRITAIN.
See (in this Volume and Volume II) ENGLAND.
GREECE: A. D. 1905. Assassination of Prime Minister Delyannis. His successors.
Theodoros Delyannis, the Premier of Greece, was assassinated on the 13th of June, 1905, by a revengeful gambler whose place had been closed by the police. A new Ministry formed by M. Ralli conducted the Government until December, when its defeat in the election of a president of the representative assembly forced a resignation. It was succeeded by a Cabinet formed under M. Theotokis, the leader of the Opposition.
GREECE: A. D. 1905-1908. Barbarities of Greek bands in Macedonia.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
GREECE: A. D. 1905-1906. Insurrection in Crete. Demand for Union with "her Mother Greece." Investigation by the Powers. Resignation of Prince George. Appointment of M. Zaimis.
See (in this Volume) CRETE; A. D. 1905-1906.
GREECE: A. D. 1907-1909. The Cretan Situation as dealt with by the Four Protecting Powers.
See (in this Volume) CRETE: A. D. 1907-1909.
GREECE: A. D. 1909 (July). Destructive Earthquake in Ellis.
See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: GREECE.
GREECE: A. D. 1909. The Government dominated by a Military League. Its submission to the Dictatorship.
Whatever vitality may previously have animated the forms of constitutional government in Greece was extinguished suddenly in July, 1909, by a demonstration of power on the part of a league of army officers to give orders to it. The Military League was backed, evidently, by a strong popular feeling against the Government, partly well founded, perhaps, but largely due to an unreasoning desire for rash undertakings to secure the annexation of Crete. The revolution in Turkey had stimulated this by seeming to open opportunities for breaking the island away from the claimed sovereignty of the Turks. What Bulgaria had been able to do in the situation for herself, and what Austria had done in annexing Bosnia and Herzegovina, it must be that the Powers which held Crete in commission, so to speak, could do for Greece, in the present state of things, if Greece had a competent Government to deal with affairs. This seems to have been the feeling, to a large extent, which produced the Military League and the popular threatenings whereby the Ministry of M. Theotoki was impelled to resign office on the 17th of July. The new Cabinet constructed by the King, under M. Ralli, held the semblance of power a little more than a month, and then had to choose between dropping it and taking orders from the League. {300} When it hesitated, and ventured an arrest of several leaders of the military combination, the latter, in a body, to the number of over 500, with about 2000 of the men of their commands, took possession of a hill outside of Athens, on the 27th of August, and established there a menacing camp. Parley was then opened with them and they submitted a programme of demands which M. Ralli declined to accept, and resigned.
According to a manifesto published by the League on the 27th, its demands, summarized in a letter from Athens, were as follows: "The officers belonging to the Military League respectfully ask the King and the Government to carry out radical reforms, and especially to proceed with the reorganization of the army and navy, in order that Greece might not in the future have to undergo any more humiliations such as she had had to tolerate in the past. The commands held by the Royal Princes in the army and navy are considered by the league to be prejudicial to their own prestige and to the accomplishment of their duties. The officers consequently insist that the Crown Prince, who is commander-in-chief of the army, and the other Royal Princes, should not hold any command in the army. They demand that the army shall be controlled by a council composed of the commanders of the three divisions under the presidency of the eldest of them, and the superintendence of the Crown Prince. They further ask that the two War Ministries should be invariably entrusted to the best officers in the army and navy and not to civilians. Among the detailed features of their programme they ask that four classes of the reserve should be called to the colours annually for manoeuvres, that a battleship of not less than 10,000 tons, and eight destroyers of not less than 150 tons each, should be constructed, that the existing three cruisers should be repaired, that all the useless small ships should be sold, including the Royal yachts, with the exception of one for the King, that a war school should be established, that a foreign general with some officers should be called in to organize a Staff service and to look after the theoretical and practical training of the army and navy, and that a more efficient corps of _Gendarmerie_ should be organized. In order to provide the necessary funds to carry out these reforms the league suggests that large retrenchments should be made in the general Budget."
The King found a compliant premier, M. Mavromichalis, who submitted to these dictations in principle, amnestied the whole League, and took one of its leaders, Colonel Lapathiotis, into his Cabinet, as Minister of War. Since that day the actual Government of Greece has been transferred from the King, his Constitutional Ministers and the "Boule," or Legislative Chamber, to the Military League. The nominal Government turned a cheerful face to the world by publishing a semi-official explanation which began as follows:
"Now that the situation has become clearer it becomes plain that the sole object of the military movement was the reorganization of the army and the reform and improvement of the Administration. The movement was at no time directed against the King or the dynasty, nor had it as its object the diminution of the rights and privileges of the Crown or the violation of the Constitution. The request of the Military Committee that the Crown Prince and the Royal Princes should be relieved of their high commands in the army was only formulated in their Highnesses’ interests, and with a view to relieve them of grave responsibilities likely to injure their prestige and in order to avert the discord and hatred which personal favoritism and the sympathies of the Princes would inevitably have engendered among the officers serving under them."
That the League had strong backing in the country was shown by popular demonstrations, one of which, at Athens, on the 27th of September, brought 50,000 people, it was said, to the Champ de Mars, to pass a resolution and to convey it to the King. "The resolution began by expressing profound satisfaction at the initiation of the struggle by the Military League against the mischievous influence of parties on State affairs, and against the misuse of interest in the army and navy, and … concluded by declaring the determination of the people to exercise constant supervision over the Government and the Chamber until their demands had been completely fulfilled.
"The demonstrators then marched to the Royal Palace, where the committee were received by the King and handed his Majesty the resolution. The King, after congratulating them upon the orderly and lawful way in which the people had made known their wishes, expressed his conviction that his Government and the Chamber would consider them and would vote the requisite laws."
The Chamber, however, was less compliant, and showed marked signs of refusing legislation for the removal of the royal Princes from active service in the army. This angered the military dictators, and fresh trouble was threatened. It was averted by the resignation of the Princes, and by the speedy adoption of the whole series of measures demanded by the League, no less than twenty-three bills being enacted within the space of an hour.
The dictatorial work of the League, however, had not gone far enough to satisfy one of its chiefs, a Lieutenant Typaldos, commander of a fleet of torpedo-boats and submarines, who suddenly set on foot a naval revolt of his own, withdrawing, with a few other officers and men, to Salamis and seizing the arsenal there. But, having the League against him, Typaldos was easily put to flight, and was captured eventually in ignominious disguise. For a time after this all went smoothly, and the Government was credited with a number of good measures, which its military masters permitted it to adopt. The situation was ruffled again toward the end of December by some offensive words in the Chamber from the Minister of War, Colonel Lapathiotis, which a large part of the deputies resented. These gave notice that they would not enter the Chamber again while the Colonel remained in the Ministry. Fortunately, just at this time, the obnoxious Minister gave offense to his associates of the League, by promoting several officers without consulting them, and they were willing that he should be dismissed.
{301}
GREECE: A. D. 1910. Agreements for a restored Constitutional Regime.
The dismissal of Colonel Lapathiotis emboldened the party in the Chamber which follows the lead of ex-Premier Rallis to make some show of an independent opposition, and provoked thereby the most arrogant reminder yet given of the dictatorial power of the Military League. On the 2d of January two officers from the League appeared in the Chamber, bearing letters addressed to the Prime Minister and to the two leaders of Opposition parties, M. Rallis and M. Theotokis, requiring the Chamber to pass twenty-seven specified measures, besides the pending budget, and requiring the Government to recall its diplomatic representatives from Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and Rome. The messengers announced that they would return at 2 p. M. for a reply, and when they did so they were assured that the commands received would be obeyed. A few hours later the Premier received a fresh mandate to dismiss his Minister of the Interior. On this, he and his colleagues attempted to resign, but were so entreated by the King to remain and submit to the humiliating situation, rather than bring the country to a state of complete political wreck, that they did so, excepting the Minister of the Interior, who withdrew.
In the succeeding four weeks, negotiations appear to have been effected between the League and the leaders of political parties, with the result announced as follows in a telegram from Athens to the American Press, January 28:
"An agreement was reached to-day by the Theotokis party, the Rallis party, and the Military League to convoke the National Assembly for a revision of the Constitution, with the condition that the league shall first be dissolved. The powers of the National Assembly will be limited as to the sections of the Constitution to be revised, and no interference with the royal prerogatives will be permitted."
King George assented to the proposed convocation of a National Assembly for the revision of the Constitution, though the existing Constitution would be violated by the method of procedure to be taken, since the choice seemed to lie between this and a complete wreckage of constitutional government. A Cretan leader, M. Venezelo, of high reputation for political sagacity, came to Athens on invitation and conducted a settlement of the affair with apparent success. The Mavromichalis Ministry gave way to another, formed under M. Dragoumis; a programme of constitutional changes to be laid before the contemplated National Assembly was agreed upon; the election of the Assembly was appointed for August next and its meeting for September, and the dissolution of the Military League was pledged. Such was the situation in the later days of March, 1910.
GREEN HILLS, Capture of.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).
GREY, ALBERT HENRY GEORGE, EARL: Governor-General of Canada.
See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1904.
GREY, SIR EDWARD: Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (December), 1905-1906; and TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
GREY, SIR EDWARD: Correspondence on American Fishing Rights in Newfoundland waters.
See (in this Volume) NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1905-1909.
GREY, SIR EDWARD: On the Changed Conditions in Europe that make for Peace.
See EUROPE: A. D. 1909.
GREY, SIR EDWARD: On the Budget of 1909 and the House of Lords.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (April-December).
GROCERS’ ASSOCIATION, Dissolution of the.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1906.
GROSSCUP, JUDGE PETER S.: Decision in the Case of the United States v. Swift & Co., et al.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
GROSSCUP, JUDGE PETER S.: Opinion in Standard Oil Case.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904-1909.
GRUITCH, GENERAL: Head of Radical Servian Ministry.
See (in this Volume) BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: SERVIA: A. D. 1903.
GUANTANAMO: Coaling and Naval Station leased to the United States.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1903.
GUATEMALA.
See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA.
GUERRA, COLONEL PINO: Leader of Insurrection in Cuba.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1906 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
GUIANA, BRITISH: A. D. 1904. Settlement of Brazilian boundary dispute.
See (in this Volume) BRAZIL: A. D. 1904.
GULLY, W. C.: Resignation of the Speakership of House of Commons. Elevation to the Peerage.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1905 (JUNE).
GUMMERÉ, S. R.: American Delegate to the Alegeciras Conference on the Morocco Question.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906.
GUTHRIE, GEORGE W.: Mayor of Pittsburg.
See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
H.
HAAKON VII., King of Norway.
See (in this Volume ) NORWAY: A. D. 1902-1905.
HABIBULLAH, Ameer of Afghanistan.
See (in this Volume) AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1901-1904.
HAECKEL, Ernst Heinrich. Eminent German scientist, retired from his Professorship at Jena University on his 75th birthday, February 10, 1909.
HAGEN-HAGEN, LIEUTENANT: Tragically ended Greenland Coast Survey.
See (in this Volume) POLAR EXPLORATION.
HAGOPIAN, H.: On the Turkish Revolution.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
HAGUE TRIBUNAL, The: A. D. 1902. Decision of the Pious Fund Question between Mexico and the United States.
See (in this Volume) MEXICO: A. D. 1902 (MAY).
HAGUE TRIBUNAL, The: A. D. 1903. Decision on Venezuela Question.
See (in this Volume) VENEZUELA: A. D 1902-1903.
HAGUE TRIBUNAL, The: Carnegie Gift to it of a Court House and Library.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1903.
HAGUE, The: A. D. 1907. The Second Peace Conference.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
HAICHENG, RUSSIAN EVACUATION OF.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
HAKKI BEY: Grand Vizier.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (MAY-DECEMBER).
{302}
HALDANE, Richard B.: Secretary of State for War.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906.
HALE vs. HENKEL, The case of.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905-1906.
HAMID EDDIN, Sheik of the Hadramaut: His claims to the Caliphate, against the Sultan.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1905.
HAMLIN, Reverend Dr. Cyrus.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: TURKEY, &c.
HANKAU-SZE-CHUAN RAILWAY LOAN. The question of American participation.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1904-1909.
HANSEN, Ole.
See (in this Volume) DENMARK: A. D. 1901.
HARBIN, KHARBIN: A. D. 1905. Opened to all commerce.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1905 (DECEMBER).
HARCOURT, VERNON.
See VERNON-HARCOURT.
HARDEN, Maximilian: The Trials of.
See (in this Volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1907-1908.
HARDIE, KEIR.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1906; LABOR ORGANIZATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1903; and SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
HARRIMAN, Edward H.: His extraordinary Accumulation and Organization of Railway Properties. His death.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909.
HARRIMAN, Mrs. E. H. Gift of land to New York for a State Park.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909-1910.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Interchanges of Professors with French and German Universities.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.
HASSAN FEHMI EFFENDI, Assassination of.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).
HATSUSE, Sinking of the.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
HATTI HUMAYUN, The Turkish.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER).
HAUSA LAND.
See (in this Volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1903 (NIGERIA).
HAVANA: A. D. 1907. Population.
See (in this Volume) CUBA: A. D. 1907.
HAY, John: Secretary of State.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905, and 1905-1909.
HAY, John: Negotiation of the Hay-Bond Reciprocity Treaty.
See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1902-1905.
HAY, John: Negotiation of Treaty with China to open two new Ports to Foreign Trade.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1903 (MAY-OCTOBER).
HAY, John: Honorary President of Second International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
HAY, John: Proclamation of his death.
See UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905 (JULY).
HAY-PAUNCEFOTE CANAL TREATY, Interoceanic.
See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1901-1902.
HAITI: A. D. 1901-1902. Participation in Second International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
HAITI: A. D. 1902. Revolution and Civil War produced by a Blunder of Law. Resignation of President Sam. Election of General Nord Alexis.
An outbreak of revolution in Haiti occurred under singular circumstances on the 12th of May, 1902. As related in a despatch of a few days later by Mr. W F. Powell, United States Minister to Haiti, the circumstances were these: When, in April, 1896. General Theresias Simon Sam was elected President of the Republic (see, under HAYTI, in Volume VI. of this work), on the sudden death of President Hypolite, "Congress enacted a law requiring him to enter upon the duties of the Presidential office at once, and to remain in office until May 15, 1903. This law, it seems now," wrote Mr. Powell, "was not constitutional, as the constitution states: ‘That upon the death, resignation, malfeasance in office, or removal therefrom of the President before the 15th of May (in any year) the cabinet or council of ministers is charged with these functions until the 15th of May, when the newly elected President shall assume the duties of the Presidency; but if a President should accept office or enter upon the duties of the same prior to this time (15th of May), then his term of office must expire on the 15th of May of the year preceding the time that it actually expired, thus not allowing the incumbent to remain in office the full seven years, the time for which he was elected.’
"For some reason this provision of the constitution was not thought of, or else forgotten, at the time General Sam was elected. No mention was made of this section until about a year ago, when the question was launched upon the public view by the enemies of the Government. The more this question was discussed the more potent it became, until it occupied the attention of all classes to the exclusion of all other matters. … The several political arrests and the exile of many persons within the past two years have been on account of this discussion, they demanding that this article of the constitution should be literally followed, the Government, on its part, believing that in the arrest and exile of all such persons all discussions and agitation of this matter would cease. But this rigor on the part of the Government produced, instead of friends, enemies, who were daily gaining strength.
"At the several interviews I had with the President up to the time I left for Santo Domingo (February 10) he stated that it was his intention to remain in office until he had finished his term (to May 15, 1903) and that he would not resign or cease to be President prior to that time. He had also impressed this fact upon the members of his cabinet up to May 1 of the present year, when it was learned that it was his intention to resign at an early day." This announcement brought a number of candidates into the field, and Mr. Powell, on returning to Port au Prince on the 11th of May, found a precarious situation there. He secured an interview with President Sam the following morning, and "was informed that he had determined to resign, that his resignation was ready to be sent to Congress, that he was tired of this constant agitation, and that he would leave by the French steamer then in port for France, where he would pass the remainder of his life in quietness and peace; that since it was the wish of the people to have a new President he would not oppose them, but would abide by article 93 of the national constitution, and if the chambers did not elect a President to-day, Monday, the country would be without a President."
{303}
One of the candidates, General Leconte, a member of the Government about to be dissolved, "felt certain that he would be elected, as he had sufficient votes pledged in both houses to elect him. This news spread rapidly, the streets became full of armed citizens wending their way toward the chambers to prevent, forcibly if necessary, his election. At first it was difficult to get the members together. The streets in the neighborhood of the legislative halls were thronged with people and the Government troops, the latter to protect the members in case of violence. Several secret meetings of the members were held. At last the doors were opened, and as soon as opened every available space not occupied by the two houses was filled by the friends and foes of General Leconte. As the balloting was about to commence some one in the chambers fired his revolver. In an instant shooting commenced from all parts of the room. One or two were killed and the same number wounded. The members all sought shelter in the most available places they could find—under benches or desks. Others forgot the way they entered and sought exit by means of the windows. By this means the populace prevented the election of General Leconte, forcibly adjourned the chambers without date, and dispersed the members of both chambers. The Government troops immediately retired to the palace, the arsenal, the barracks, or the arrondissement, as it was thought that an attack would be immediately made on each place.
"A committee of safety was at once formed to safeguard the interests of the city, and as the news reached the other cities of the Republic similar committees were named with like duties. The next object was to secure the palace, arsenal, and the Government buildings. A concerted attack was made on each of the above places at 10 p. m., lasting about twenty minutes, in which the Government troops were the victors. It is supposed that in these engagements about one hundred persons were either killed or wounded."
The next day, on the ex-President’s request, Mr. Powell, as dean of the diplomatic corps, arranged with his associates to escort General and Mrs. Sam, together with General Leconte, to the steamer on which they wished to embark, and their departure was undisturbed.
On the 26th of May a Provisional Government, with General Boisrond Canal for its President, was established by delegates sent from "the several sections of the Republic." Elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were appointed to be held early in July; though the Constitution had declared that such elections "must occur during the first weeks in the month of January." This gave a fine opening for future troubles. Meantime, irregular skirmishing, preliminary to positive civil war, was bringing all business to an end. On the 26th of July Mr. Powell reported to Washington that civil war had been declared. The contest for the Presidency seemed narrowed to two candidates. General Nord Alexis, Minister of War and Marine in the Provisional Government, and Mr. A. Firmin, whose cause was supported by the Haytian navy, of two gunboats, commanded by Admiral Killick. It is needless to give details of the hostilities that ensued.
The elections were determined and the Chamber of Deputies was organized about the 20th of August. The Deputies had then to choose the Senatorial body, and the strife of factions among them prevented that election until late in the year, when the forces of the Provisional Government had achieved successes which brought the civil war practically to an end. General Nord Alexis, who had been campaigning for months, returned triumphantly with his army to Port au Prince on the 14th of December; was acclaimed President by the Army on the 17th, and was formally elected by the National Assembly on the 21st. He was then reported to be 85 years old.
HAITI: A. D. 1908. Revolution once more. Overthrow and expulsion of President Nord Alexis. General Antoine Simon his elected successor.
The Government under President Nord Alexis was maintained for six years, by its own unsparing use of power, it would seem, rather than by the good will of the country. Revolutionary projects had been crushed with prompt vigor before they had much chance of development, until November, 1908, when one, led by a displaced military commander, General Antoine Simon, ran so rapid a course that it arrived at complete success on the 2d of the following month. The aged but indomitable Nord Alexis strove hard to resist it, even to the last inch of fighting in his own palace; but Port au Prince rose against him; his partisans fell away; his soldiers deserted; and finally, on the afternoon of December 2d, he consented to be taken on board a French training-ship, then in port. In doing this there was difficulty in saving him from an angry city mob. The escape of the fallen President was described in a Port au Prince despatch to the Associated Press as follows:
"So serious was the situation that the French minister, M. Carteron, and other foreign representatives, with members of a specially appointed committee, forced themselves upon the President, who finally consented to withdraw. Shouts greeted him as he stepped to his carriage. M. Carteron, carrying the French tri-color, threw the folds of the flag over the shoulders of the de posed president to protect him. All along the route the people who lined the streets shouted, jeered and cursed the fallen President, but when the landing stage was reached, the mob lost all restraint. The scene was tragic and shameful. Infuriated women broke through the cordon of troops and shrieked the coarsest insults into the very face of the President, who strove bravely to appear undismayed. They hurled themselves, fighting with hands and feet, against the soldiers, who found difficulty in forcing them back. One woman with a murderous knife, got to the President’s side and made a sweep at his body, but the blow fell short, and, before she could follow it with another, she was seized by a soldier. A man struck the President a glancing blow with his fist on the neck. Alexis, shaking his head, so, turned to M. Carteron and said: ‘I told you your excellency.’
{304}
"To clear space, the troops fired several volleys over the heads of the mob. For a moment, they gave way, and Alexis, with the French colors draped about him, was bustled into a skiff, in tow of a steam launch, his disordered suite tumbling in after him. As the launch drew away, three Haytian gunboats and the American warships in the harbor fired a salute to the fallen President.
"A trunk which was left behind on the precipitate departure of the President and his party from the wharf, was seized upon by the rioters and broken open. It was found to contain some $10,000 in gold and 20,000 Haytian gourdes. The specie was scattered about and promptly pillaged."
According to a despatch of the next day, "riot and pillage swept through the night following the flight of the fallen President, Nord Alexis. The populace, maddened by a taste of revolt, gave themselves over to absolute license, They looted stores and residences and then fought among themselves over the booty until an armed force, hastily gathered together by General Poitevin, fired a volley into the mob and finally drove them into hiding. In all, twelve persons were killed and many wounded before order was restored. …
"Past 90 years of age—how many years beyond nobody knows—Nord Alexis had faced his foes with the strength and determination of a man in the very prime of life. To-day he said: ‘The courageous conduct of M. Carteron (the French minister) saved my life.’ … The President was broken-hearted over the attitude of his people, of whose hostility he was entirely ignorant. ‘They always cheered me when I appealed in the streets,’ he said mournfully, ‘and I have always labored for their good.’
"He protested against the ‘legend’ that he ever had shown any enmity toward the whites, and, for the first time, expressed his views with regard to the summary executions which took place on March 15th last, when many men were shot to death by order of General Leconte. He had always been convinced, he said, that the men had been killed during an attack upon the palace. His officials and those upon whom he depended had kept back the truth from him.
"With regard to his destination, Nord Alexis said that he would wait until he could be transported to Jamaica, Saint Thomas or Martinique."
General Simon and his victorious army of rebellion entered the capital on the 5th. Some degree of order had been restored by a Committee of Safety, under ex-President Legitime, but fresh strifes were imminent between rival candidates for the vacant presidency. Simon, with his military following, brushed them aside, and obtained a unanimous election by the Haitian Congress on the 17th, assuming office as President on the 20th.
HAITI: A. D. 1909. The Haitian People. The splendid industry of the Women. The curse of the country in its Military Government.
"Four-fifths of the Haitians—the peasantry of the country, that is to say—are hard working, peaceable country people. These four-fifths of 3,000,000 are entirely negro in race, and probably represent a mingling of West African types from Senegambia, Dahomé, and the Congo. It is a race which exhibits, away from the towns, a fine physical development; its skin colour is much darker and the negro type more pronounced than in the United States. … The women are the best part of the nation They are splendid, unremitting toilers. In the face of all discouragements with, which a bad Government clouds their existence the women of Haiti almost remind one of certain patient types of ant or termite, who, as fast as you destroy their labour of months or days, hasten to repair it with unslacking energy.
"The curse of Haiti from the day she established her independence in 1804 to the present time is the tyrannical and wasteful Government of the military party. … Scarcely a President in the history of Haiti has not been a military man and the favourite leader, for the time being, of the major portion of the army. … That President Antoine Simon will follow in the bloody footsteps of all his Presidential predecessors is improbable. He is a man of obviously kindly nature, with a record of 22 years’ essentially clement government of the great southern province of Haiti; but he is an old man of imperfect education, and though he may turn out a complete surprise, yet so far he has done nothing to improve the conditions of political elections. The whole power of the country is still entirely based on the soldiers."
_Sir Harry Johnston, in The London Times, April 13, 1909._
HEARST, William R.: Candidacy for Mayor of New York.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905 and 1909.
HEARST, William R.: Candidacy for Governor of New York State.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910.
HEDERVARY MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903.
HENEY, FRANCIS J.
See (in this Volume) MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: SAN FRANCISCO, and UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
HENRIQUES, CAMPOS.
See (in this Volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909.
HENRY PHIPPS INSTITUTE.
See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: TUBERCULOSIS.
HENRY, Prince of Prussia: Visit to the United States.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
HEPBURN ACT.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1870-1908, and 1906-1909.
HERMANN, BINGER: U. S. Commissioner of the Land Office, involved in Land Frauds.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
HERO FUNDS.
See (in this Volume) CARNEGIE HERO FUNDS.
HERREROS, The.
See (in this Volume) AFRICA: A. D. 1904-1905, and GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.
HERRING, A. M.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: AERONAUTICS.
HERVÉ, Gustave: Apostle of Anti-Militarism in France.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
HERZEGOVINA.
See (in this Volume) BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
HETCH HETCHY PROJECT, The.
See (in this Volume) SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1901-1909.
HICKS-BEACH, SIR MICHAEL: Retirement from the English Chancellorship of the Exchequer.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 (JULY).
HIGHBINDER ASSOCIATIONS, CHINESE.
See (in this Volume) SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1902.
{305}
HILL, David Jayne: Commissioner Plenipotentiary to the Second Peace Conference.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
HILL, James J.: His connection with the Northern Securities Case.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.
HILMI PASHA.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903; 1908 (JULY-DECEMBER), and after.
HINDU DISAFFECTION.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
HINDU IMMIGRATION: The Resistance to in South Africa, Australia, and elsewhere.
See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS.
HISGEN, Thomas L.: Nominated for President of the United States.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1908 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
HITCHCOCK, Ethan Allen: Secretary of the Interior.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905, 1903-1906, and 1905-1909.
HITCHCOCK, Frank H.: Postmaster-General.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).
HOFF, JACOBUS HENRICUS VAN’T.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
HOHENLOHE, Prince.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1905-1906.
"HOLDING COMPANY," The: Decision of its Illegality as a method of Combination between Corporations.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1905.
HOLLAND.
See (in this Volume and Volume III) NETHERLANDS.
HOLSTEIN, Herr von: On the German "Navy Fever."
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907-1909.
HOLSTEIN-LEDREBORG MINISTRY.
See (in this Volume) DENMARK: A. D. 1905-1909.
HOLY SEE.
See (in this Volume and Volume IV) PAPACY.
"HOLY WAR," IN ARABIA.
See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1905.
HOMEL, JEWISH MASSACRE AT.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1901-1904.
HONDURAS.
See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA.
HORUP, M.
See (in this Volume) DENMARK: A. D. 1901.
HOTTENTOTS, REVOLT OF THE.
See (in this Volume) GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.
HOURS OF LABOR.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902; GERMANY: A. D. 1908. Also, LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR; and LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES AND COST OF LIVING.
HOUSING AND TOWN-PLANNING ACT.
See (in this Volume) SOCIAL BETTERMENT: ENGLAND: A. D. 1909.
HSIHOYEN, BATTLE OF.
See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
HSUAN-TUNG: Child-Emperor of China.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1908 (NOVEMBER).
HUDSON BAY REGION: A. D. 1903-1904. Canadian measures to establish Sovereignty over Land and Sea.
See (in this Volume ) CANADA: A. D. 1903-1904.
HUDSON BAY REGION: Projected Railway from the Canadian Northwest.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: CANADA: A. D. 1908-1909.
HUDSON-FULTON COMMEMORATION.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1909.
HUDSON TUNNELS.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1900-1909.
HUGHES, Charles Evans: Counsel of the Legislative Joint Committee to Investigate Life Insurance Companies in New York.
See (in this Volume) INSURANCE, LIFE.
HUGHES, Charles Evans: Governor of the State of New York.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910. Also, ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: UNITED STATES, and PUBLIC UTILITIES.
HUGHES, Charles Evans: On the Proposed Income Tax Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (JULY).
HUMPHREY, Judge: Immunity Decision in "Beef Trust" Case.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1903-1906.
HUNGARY.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
HYDE, Dr. Douglas: Founder of Gaelic League.
See (in this Volume) IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907.
HYDE, HENRY B.: Founder of the Equitable Life Assurance Society.
See (in this Volume) INSURANCE, LIFE.
HYDE, James Hazen: Relations to the Equitable Life Assurance Society.
See (in this Volume) INSURANCE, LIFE.
I.
ICELAND: Its Ancient Claims to Nationality.
Within the last few years the Icelanders have been asserting their ancient right to a national life of their own so seriously that the King of Denmark has exerted himself to soothe their discontent with but partial success. For many historical reasons Iceland ought to have an independent standing among the European states. For some of those reasons its people seem fairly entitled to recognition as the foremost representatives of the old Norse or Scandinavian race. Their ancestors were men of the best blood of Norway, who quitted that country in the ninth century and took possession of the arctic island, because they would not submit to the despotism established by Harold the Fairhaired. That they took with them the best culture of their race and time is proved by the fact that almost everything we know of the old Norse literature, and of the mythology and history embedded in it, was preserved by their pens. Learning was cherished and cultivated among them from the first: and they had the capacity and the spirit for self-government from the first. Before the end of the tenth century they had adopted a republican constitution and founded a commonwealth which endured for about 300 years. This antedated the rise of the city republics of Italy and the free cantons of the Swiss by one or two centuries at the least.
The Icelandic republic was destroyed at last by feuds among its leading families, which invited Norwegian intervention from time to time, and subjected the island to the parent kingdom in the end. Late in the fourteenth century the three Scandinavian kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were joined in a union which did not endure. {306} Its dissolution left Norway, with Iceland as a dependency, attached to Denmark, and that connection was maintained till 1814. Norway was then transferred from the Danish to the Swedish crown; but Iceland was still kept as a part of the dominion of the Danish King. Norway regained national distinctness and independence in 1905, and now it is to be hoped that Iceland will have its just turn.
The island has never been governed as a mere province of Denmark, but always under its own laws. Its old representative assembly, the Althing, was suspended during most of the first half of the last century, but revived in 1845 as a merely consultative assembly. As such it voiced very steadily the claim of the Icelanders to more of autonomy and political distinctness than their Danish lord was willing to yield. In 1874, however, at the 1,000th anniversary of the Icelandic settlement, he granted a constitution which reinvested the Althing with legislative powers, and met the wishes of the island in other important ways; but not so far as to produce content.
IDAHO: A. D. 1905-1907. Murder of ex-Governor Steunenberg. Trial and acquittal of Haywood.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1899-1907.
IDE, HENRY CLAY: Governor-General of the Philippine Islands.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1906-1907.
IGNATIEFF, COUNT ALEXEI: Assassination.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1906.
ILLINOIS: A. D. 1899. Enactment of the first Juvenile Court Law.
See (in this Volume) CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS OFFENDERS.
IMAM, ALI.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
----------IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Start--------
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Australia: A. D. 1909. The needs of the country. The attitude of the people toward Immigration. The difficulties.
Speaking at a dinner in his honor, given in London, after his return from five years of service as Governor-General of Australia, Lord Northcote touched on what he described as "the Aaron’s rod of all political questions in Australia, which, if it does not swallow up the others, at all events the others depend upon it,"—meaning the increase of Australia’s population. As to the attitude of Australia to the immigration question he said: "No doubt, from time to time certain over-zealous officials have made mistakes which have prejudiced Australia in the eyes of the British public, but I do not believe that anything in the nature of a fixed desire to keep out men who are able to sustain themselves by their labour has ever existed. Of course, Australia has her number of unemployables, and is not prepared to import more from the old country. Then I come to the very important question of coloured immigration, and that is a question we should look at from an Australian as well as from a British point of view. …
"Suppose Australia or Canada confronted by the presence of a large number of Asiatics, men of ability enough to hold their own, men who, if they come there, come to stay, and it is quite conceivable from an Australian point of view that if they do not rigidly secure themselves against the possibility of being swamped by Asiatic labour, they may be presented with a problem even more serious than is the great negro question in the United States. I say this to show that there is more to be said for the Australian point of view than some people are inclined to suppose. Of course a great deal depends upon whether the huge northern territory can be populated by white men. Upon that I hesitate to pronounce a definite opinion. I believe it is possible for a white man, if he is steady, sober, and careful, to colonize for a time this great tropical land; but it is a very serious matter how far the climate is suitable for women and children, and whether we can hope from generation to generation that a healthy and virile race can continue to live and breed in that climate. The territory is over half a million square miles in extent, and the white population is well under 2,000 people. …
"There is plenty of land all through Australia for men who are willing to go there and will be steady and sober and work hard. I have been North, South, East, and West. I can claim for myself the credit that I have travelled fairly hard, and I have seen in every State of Australia plenty of land available for close settlement. If the great landowners are disinclined to sell their holdings—and I quite acknowledge that a great deal of the best land in Australia is in comparatively few hands—at all events the State Governments have very large reserves of land; and by the application of irrigation and other methods of scientific farming they could compete on even terms at least with these squatters, and they could turn these waste lands into fertile country fit for settlers. I am very glad to think that both in New South Wales and Victoria very large irrigation works are in progress and will be completed in a very short time, adding enormously to the acreage of land fit for cultivation; and I say deliberately and advisedly, I care not for reports of Commissions or individuals, that there is land and to spare for generations for men who are ready to undertake the cultivation."
A correspondent of the London _Times_, writing from Sydney in January, 1909, on the subject of the vast quantity of fertile land in Australia that is locked up by private owners in vast sheep runs, to the exclusion of settlement, had this to say: "You may take it as an axiom that immigration to Australia will do no good till the fertile lands are thrown open. And a very large proportion of the closed land is controlled from London, either by ex-Australians who live there and draw their income from Australian property, or by big British companies. … It is necessary to warn seriously shareholders and directors of the big companies that they must put pressure on their officials out here, or prepare to have more drastic pressure forced on themselves. At present, those officials are often responsible for Australian dislike of the absentee company."
{307}
In another letter to the same paper it was said: "Somehow or other the locked-up lands must be opened for agricultural uses. No one now doubts that, and only a few owners, usually either absentees or corporations, pretend to doubt it. The Labour recipe is a Federal land tax on estates over £5,000 in value, of such a kind that fair use of the land will produce profit on which the tax will be a mere fleabite, while it will be a serious charge on fertile land that is used only for sheep runs. The proposed tax is to be Federal simply because there is no hope of passing the requisite Bill through several of the State Upper Houses; otherwise it is more properly a State concern. Now what we have to remember is that this is not only Labour’s remedy. I believe it would be quite possible to carry such a proposal in the present Federal Parliament, so definitely has public opinion swung round against the big owners who keep their land idle. If it is not carried next session, it will be because Mr. Deakin gave his word two years ago that he would not introduce the subject in this Parliament; but Mr. Deakin’s attitude is this—that he wishes the States would do it, that he does not consider this Parliament has any mandate to legislate for it, but that he personally has always favoured such a tax, and, if the States take no steps in that direction, he will support, or even propose, the measure when it has been submitted to the country at a general election. It is useless, therefore, for any one to decry the tax as merely a Labour idea, a ‘Socialistic’ nostrum. The support given it in Australia is far wider than that. And, apart from the many who advocate it as the best remedy for the present land-hunger, there is an increasing body of electors who are being forced into supporting it because no other remedies seem practicable."
The attitude of the Australian Labor Party on the inseparable immigration and land questions was stated very clearly and succinctly in a letter to the London _Times_, dated at Newcastle, New South Wales, June 30, 1909, by a member of the Party, Frank Pittock, who signs himself "a Magistrate of the Territory." He writes: "We cannot at present obtain land for our own genuine land-seekers, skilled in the peculiar requirements of pastoral and agricultural work on the Australian soil. We certainly are unable to give our own unemployed a chance on the land. Any importations of labour from over the seas merely serve to render more distressful the unfortunate position of the colonial out-of-works. On the other hand, we do now, and always have, welcomed new arrivals who may be able, in the near future, to effectively augment our productive wealth. The party fully recognizes the need of population—of the right sort. We have vast empty spaces all over the continent, now grazing grounds for sheep, yet eminently suitable for intense settlement. The Australian Labour party seeks the support, at the forthcoming general election, of all who believe, as does your own Australian Correspondent, that the satisfying of the earth-hunger of our people is the great outstanding need of the day. Can we but be authorized to force the huge monopolists to surrender portions of their holdings we shall have, not only land for our own landless, but land and to spare for those who seek it from the British Isles. … We dare not, as a conscientious and humanitarian party, invite our kith and kin from other parts to come here now. We should be traitors to the Empire, betrayers of the race, if we endorsed in any way the attitude of those who seek, apparently, to flood this fair land with any population at all, regardless of the evil consequences to the immigrants themselves, and alike regardless of the grave injustice thereby done to native-born landless and, in many cases, at present, work-seeking Australians."
A Press despatch from Sydney, October 30, made the following announcement: "Under the closer settlement amendment Bill, which is now before the Legislative Council of New South Wales, the Government will be empowered by proclamation to earmark estates in the vicinity of towns which might impede settlement. When such estates are of the value of £10,000 and upwards the Government may agree with the owners to subdivide them on terms and areas to be agreed upon, so as to ensure _bona fide_ settlement. If the owners fulfil the agreement, the proclamation will be cancelled; if the owners refuse to subdivide within five years, the Government reserves the power to resume at the value on the date of proclamation."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Brazil: 1908-1909. Increasing Influx.
"During the year [1908] 112,234 persons came into the country, of which 17,539 were visitors and 94,695 immigrants. This shows a notable increase of 26,908 immigrants, or about forty per cent. over the number registered in 1907. Of these 74,999 came at their own expense and 11,109 at the cost of the Union. The increase continues this year, as will be seen from the record of the Port of Rio de Janeiro alone, which received 13,580 immigrants during the first quarter of this year, as compared with 8,607 in 1908 and 5,943 in 1907. In spite of the small grant allotted to this service, it has been conducted with the greatest efficiency. The Department for the Peopling of the Soil has effected the location of immigrants in 26 colonies, situated respectively in the States of Espirito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Geraes, São Paulo, Parana, Santa Catharina, and Rio-Grande-do-Sul, eleven of which are directly under the supervision of the Union. All the nucleus colonies founded last year enjoy unrestricted prosperity, and it has been even necessary to acquire neighbouring lands in order to satisfy the constant demand for more land on the part of the families settled."
_President’s Message to Congress, May 3, 1909._
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Canada: A. D. 1896-1909. The "American Invasion" of the Northwest. Immigration of the last decade.
See (in this Volume ) CANADA: A. D. 1896-1909.
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: England: A. D. 1905-1909. The Aliens Act. Restrictions on the admission of Aliens. A new policy.
Until 1905, England offered practically an open door to the aliens who sought either a permanent home or a temporary residence on her island soil. Little scrutiny was given to them and almost no restriction on their coming in. But some years before that date a growing criticism of such unconditioned hospitality was begun. {308} In 1888 it induced the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons "to inquire into the laws existing in the United States and elsewhere on the subject of the immigration of destitute aliens, and the extent and effect of such immigration into the United Kingdom, and to report whether it is desirable to impose any, and if so, what, restrictions on such immigration." The Commission reported in 1889 that it thought "the alien population was not numerous enough to create alarm," and that it was "not prepared to recommend legislation at present," but saw "the possibility of such legislation becoming necessary in the future." Several proposals of restrictive measures were urged without success in the course of the next dozen years, and, in 1902, a Royal Commission was appointed, "to inquire into—
(1) the character and extent of the evils which are attributed to the unrestricted immigration of aliens, especially in the Metropolis;
(2) the measures which have been adopted for the restriction and control of alien immigration in foreign countries and in British colonies."
The Commission produced an elaborate report in 1903 (Parliamentary Papers, Cd. 1741). Reviewing the hospitality of the past, it found that the migrant aliens of former generations had made the English people "their debtors"; but they were of a different stamp from the immigrants of the present movement, which "may be said to have begun about 1880, and is drawn mainly from the Jewish inhabitants of Eastern Europe." The causes of this recent exodus have been partly economic and partly due to oppressive measures; and the result of the Commission’s investigation of it was the expressed opinion that "in respect of certain classes of immigrants, especially those arriving from Eastern Europe, it is necessary in the interests of the State generally, and of certain localities in particular, that the entrance of such immigrants into this country and their right of residence here should be placed under conditions and regulations coming within that right of interference which every country possesses to control the entrance of foreigners into it. Such regulations should, in our opinion," the report went on to say, "be made in order to prevent so far as possible this country being burdened with the presence of ‘undesirable aliens’ and to provide for their repatriation in certain cases.
"But we think that the greatest evils produced by the presence of the alien immigrants here are the overcrowding caused by them in certain districts of London, and the consequent displacement of the native population. There seems little likelihood of being able to remedy these great evils by the enforcement of any law applicable to the native and alien population alike. We therefore think that special regulations should be made for the purpose of preventing aliens at their own will choosing their residence within districts already so overcrowded that any addition to dwellers within it must produce most injurious results. On this point the Commission recommended specifically that if it be found that the immigration of aliens into any area has substantially contributed to any overcrowding, and that it is expedient that no further newly-arrived aliens should become residents in such area, the same may be declared prohibited area.
"We are also of opinion that efforts should be made to rid this country of the presence of alien criminals (and other objectionable characters)."
An Act embodying substantially the recommendations of the Commission passed Parliament in 1905. Both the Act and the administration of it have been criticised since, as lacking stringency. Its working was reviewed at considerable length in _The Times_ of February 9, 1909 which made the following statements, among others, on the subject:
"The Act, as now administered, does not subject all alien immigrants, or even all steerage immigrants, to inspection. To begin with, the regulation of alien immigration is confined, practically, to the traffic between the United Kingdom and ports in Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea."
In fact, according to _The Times_, "the vast majority of aliens are not affected by the Act. A foreigner may enter this country unchallenged—If he comes from an ‘extra-European’ port (with some exceptions); if he is a cabin passenger; if he is an exempted second-class passenger; if he is a transmigrant; if he is a passenger in a ship containing fewer than 21 ‘alien steerage passengers.’
"Then also, though nominally a subject for inspection, he is not called upon to satisfy the full requirements of the Act, if he is proceeding to a destination outside the United Kingdom; if he holds a return ticket; if he is a seaman; if he is fleeing from religious or political persecution."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Germany: A. D. 1904-1908. Remarkable decrease of Emigration.
"German emigration has dwindled so steadily and rapidly that at present it would seem to have reached the low-water mark in its downward trend. A glance at the official statistics of emigration will indicate the remarkable extent of this retrogression. In 1852, Germans, to the number of 145,918, and in 1854, to the number of 215,009, went to the United States alone. In 1872, just after the unification of the Empire, the grand total of German emigration amounted to 128,152; in 1873, to 110,438; in 1881, to 220,902; in 1882, to 203,585 persons. During the years succeeding 1882 up to 1892, the figures, in the average, still surpassed 100,000, but since then they have shown a notable falling off. Thus only 22,309 in 1900; 22,073 in 1901; 32,098 in 1902; 36,310 in 1903; 27,984 in 1904—were recorded as having gone from Germany to lands beyond the sea.
"This retrogressive tendency appears the more surprising when it is remembered that Germany’s population, mainly as a result of the excess of births over deaths, but partly through its inland migration, has, since the foundation of the Empire, increased at an average annual rate of over half a million, during recent years at the still higher rate of 800,000 per annum. The cause for this seeming anomaly lies in the extraordinary economical development of Germany during the last decade, in the consequent steady improvement of the social status of its laboring classes, brought about by a progressive rise in wages, and in the elimination, thereby, of one of the strongest incentives to emigration in former days."
_Baron Speck von Sternburg, The Phantom Peril of German Emigration and South American Settlements (North American Review, May, 1906)._
{309}
Of the emigrants from Germany in 1908, the United States Consul-General reported that they numbered only 19,880, being 11,816 less than in 1907.
"From 1897 to 1907 the yearly mean average was 27,526, or 0.47 per cent. of the population. Altogether since 1871 the German Empire has lost only 2,750,000 people by emigration, or as many people as can be made good in four years by the excess of births over deaths."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Italy: A. D. 1908. Great falling off in the Movement of Emigration.
As reported in a Press despatch from Rome, in June, 1909, the statistics of 1908 showed a marked falling off in Italian emigration. "In 1907 the total number of emigrants was 704,675; in 1908 it was only 486,674. The most notable reduction is in the number of emigrants to the United States, which has fallen from 298,124 in 1907 to 131,501 in 1908. This chiefly affects Southern Italy, the Abruzzi, Campania, Calabria, Basilicata, and Sicily; the northern emigration, which for the most part is directed towards European countries, is also diminished, but in a less proportion. Unfortunately, this change is not due to more favourable labour conditions in Italy, but to a smaller demand for labour in North America. The number of emigrants to Argentina has slightly increased from 78,493 to 80,699; but the great market for Italian labour, the United States, is, to judge from the figures of this year as well as last year, surely and irretrievably growing smaller."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: Peru: A. D. 1906. Decree for the Encouragement of Immigration.
The following decree was promulgated by President Pardo the 10th of August, 1906:
"First. The State will provide third-class passages for the natives of Europe and America who may wish to introduce industrial or private enterprises, provided that they fulfill the following conditions:
(_a_) That they are from 16 to 50 years of age, if they are males, and from 10 to 40 if they are females, fulfilling the conditions of morality and health laid down in the rules now in force.
(_b_) That they come to engage in agriculture, in mining, or in other industries, or to devote themselves to these occupations for account of colonization, immigration, or irrigation enterprises.
"Second. The payment of the passages will be made through the consuls of the Republic in the ports of shipment in view of the orders cabled by the ministry of fomento, to which office must be presented in writing the request of the interested parties for such payment, indicating at the same time the number of immigrants, the agricultural estate or industrial establishment to which they are destined, and declaring themselves obliged to provide lodging, board, and medical attendance for the immigrants from the port of landing to the place of destination.
"Third. The consuls of the Republic, on receipt of the order from the minister of fomento, shall make the payment of the passages to the steamer companies direct, with previous personal and individual evidence that the immigrants fulfill the conditions set forth in Article 1 of this decree, and for this purpose they shall give a certificate to each immigrant, which shall be collected by the maritime authorities of the port of landing and afterwards forwarded to the ministry of fomento.
"Fourth. A general register of immigrants shall be opened in the agricultural section of the ministry of fomento, in accordance with the models and instructions obtained from that department."
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1868-1908. Chinese Exclusion Laws vs. Treaties with China.
See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1868-1900, and 1905-1908.
IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: A. D. 1905-1909. National Conference of 1905. The New Immigration Law. Excluded Classes. Congressional Commission to investigate Immigration. Its Preliminary Report. Information for Immigrants. Measures for distributing them. Backward turn of the tide in 1908.
At a National Conference on the subject of Immigration, held at New York in December, 1905, under the auspices of the National Civic Federation, the Commissioner-General of Immigration, Mr. Frank P. Sargent, presented some facts of the immigration of the preceding statistical year which claimed very grave consideration. During the twelve months ending June 30 there had been 1,026,499 arrivals in this country, and of this number seven hundred and seventy-seven thousand, or 76 per cent., settled in six States—New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio. New York received over three hundred and fifteen thousand, while the West received only forty three thousand; Pennsylvania received over two hundred and ten thousand, while the South received only forty-six thousand. Fifty-seven thousand came to New Jersey, while North Carolina’s share was one hundred and eighty-three. These figures gave point to Mr. Sargent’s statement that the immigrants go where their friends are. Their only sources of information concerning this country are the agents of the transportation companies and their friends who have come here before. The resulting lack of knowledge concerning those parts of the country in which they are most needed is the chief cause of the congestion in the large cities and the more densely populated States which is one of the most serious aspects of the immigration problem.
Nearly twelve thousand immigrants were refused admission during the year, of whom eight thousand were paupers, two thousand diseased, and one thousand brought in violation of the contract labour law. "It is right," said Mr. Sargent, "that they should be denied admission, wrong that they ever should have been started from home."
In the new Immigration Law enacted by Congress in February, 1907, provision was made for giving information to immigrants, after their landing in the country, such as may guide them in the choice of their place of settlement. It authorized the Commissioner-General of Immigration to establish a Division of Information, the duty of which shall be "to promote a beneficial distribution of aliens admitted into the United States among the several States and Territories desiring immigration." To which end "correspondence shall be had with the proper officials of the States and Territories, and said division shall gather from all available sources useful information regarding the resources, products, and physical characteristics of each State and Territory, and shall publish such information in different languages and distribute the publications among all admitted aliens who may ask for such information at the immigrant stations of the United States and to such other persons as may desire the same." Agents appointed by any State or Territory to represent to arriving immigrants the inducements it can offer to them are to have perfect freedom and opportunity to do so.
{310}
For checking the immigration of prohibited classes of aliens at the foreign starting-points of their journey to America, instead of at the landing places on this side of the ocean, the new law only lays more rigid restrictions and heavier penalties on the transportation companies, to make them exercise a more careful discrimination in their acceptance of passengers. It adds several classes to the former list of aliens to be excluded from admission to the United States. The list now reads: "All idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous; persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars; persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living; persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy, anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or of all government, or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials: prostitutes, or women or girls coming into the United States for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose; persons who procure or attempt to bring in prostitutes or women or girls for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose,"—together with contract laborers, so called, assisted immigrants, and children under sixteen years of age unaccompanied by one or both of their parents.
The new law created a Commission to investigate the subject of immigration and to report its findings and recommendations to Congress. The Commission to be composed of three Senators, three Representatives, and three persons to be appointed by the President. A preliminary report from this Commission was presented to Congress on the 1st of March, 1909. This indicated no more than the progress that had been made in a most exhaustive investigation, which probably would require the greater part of another year to carry it to completion. It was covering every phase of the immigration question, including Oriental aliens and other excluded classes, peonage, charity among immigrants, white slave traffic, conditions of steerage, anthropology, congestion in large cities, alien criminality, competition of immigrants, school inquiries, administration of the immigration laws, distribution of immigrants, and other questions. In its work the Commission had employed 198 persons, of whom 82 were in Washington, 2 in New York, 2 in San Francisco, 92 in field work, and 20 in special lines of inquiry.
The preliminary report of the Commission indicates that the present provisions of law for the exclusion of undesirable persons are stronger in theory than they are effective in practice, and that thousands of very undesirable immigrants enter the country every year. The Commission expresses a confident expectation of finding means of prevention that will be effective. It is conducting an inquiry of great importance into the subject of alien criminality. The higher criminal courts of New York city are keeping records, at its request, in detail, of each person convicted of crime, and it is intended that a study of foreign-born criminals, and criminals of the second generation, will be made in that city. The investigation, however, is not confined to the larger cities.
The Division of Information in the Department of Commerce and Labor which the new Immigration Law provided for was organized with Mr. Terence V. Powderly, former Commissioner-General of Immigration, as its Chief. In July, 1909, there was an announcement of its undertaking to bring about coöperation with the Governors of States and Territories, in organized measures to accomplish a better distribution through the country of the foreigners that come to it.
Dr. L. Pierce Clark has lately called attention to the fact that the increase of immigration into the United States has reached the point of making the influx of aliens the principal source of population, and that "its character has changed so fundamentally that it has assumed an entirely new relation to American social problems. Up to 1900 the average annual immigration had not exceeded one-half of one per cent of the population of the United States, and the races which had made the first settlement in the country were still contributing more than 75 per cent. of the whole number of arrivals. By 1901 the new immigration had fairly started, the English, Irish, German, and Scandinavian had been supplanted by Hebrews, Slavs, and Italians, and the impetus had been received which, four years later, was to carry immigration past the million-a-year mark. More than one-fifth of all the immigrants who have come to this country have arrived since 1900, and, with the changed source of immigration, a remarkable transformation in the composition of our foreign-born population is in progress."
The industrial depression of 1907, however, produced evidence that much of this later immigration has not been for permanent settlement; that the facilitation and cheapening of travel have brought about extensive movements of people, from southern and southeastern Europe, especially, who come to America only to earn and save a little fund which suffices for a comfortable remainder of life in their own land. The check to such earning which occurred in 1907 turned the tide of migration instantly back from America to Europe. According to statistics prepared by Mr. Watchorn, the late Commissioner-General of Immigration, the excess of departures over arrivals at the port of New York, in the half year from January 1 to July 1, 1908, was 129,511. In the whole fiscal year that ended June 30, 1908, the departures from New York were 631,458; the arrivals 689,474; showing the gain of population to the country that year from incomers through the port of New York to have been only 58,016, even if all became permanent inhabitants.
See, also (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS, AND CANADA.
----------IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION: End--------
{311}
IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1907.
IMPERIAL PRESS CONFERENCE, The.
See (in this Volume) BRITISH EMPIRE: A. D. 1909 (JUNE).
INCOME TAX: Proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES: A. D. 1909 (JULY).
INDEMNITY FOR THE BOXER RISING: Remittance of part of it by the United States.
See (in this Volume) CHINA: A. D. 1901-1908.
INDEPENDENCE LEAGUE.
See (in this Volume) NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1905, and NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1906-1910.
INDEPENDENCE PARTY, or KOSSUTH PARTY.
See (in this Volume) AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903, and 1904.
INDEPENDENT FILIPINO CHURCH.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902.
INDEPENDENT LABOR PARTY, BRITISH.
See (in this Volume) ENGLAND: A. D. 1903, and 1905-1906; also, SOCIALISM: ENGLAND.
INDEPENDENTS.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
INDEPENDISTAS.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCES.
See (in this Volume) CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.
----------INDIA: Start--------
INDIA: A. D. 1902-1903. Ravages of the Bubonic Plague.
See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH: BUBONIC PLAGUE.
INDIA: A. D. 1902-1904. Forced opening of Tibet to trade. The mission and expedition of Colonel Younghusband.
See (in this Volume) TIBET: A. D. 1902-1904.
INDIA: A. D. 1903. The question of Indian Labor in South Africa.
See (in this Volume) SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903.
INDIA: A. D. 1903 (January). Great Durbar at Delhi.
A great _Durbar_ or reception was held at Delhi, on the first of January, 1903, by the Viceroy and by the Duke and Duchess of Connaught, specially deputed to represent their majesties the Emperor and Empress of India. About 100 ruling chiefs were in attendance, and the visitors drawn by the spectacle were estimated to number 173,000.
INDIA: A. D. 1903-1908. Hostility in the Transvaal to British Indian Immigration.
See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1903-1908.
INDIA: A. D. 1904-1909. Coöperative Industrial Movement.
See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION: INDIA.
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (April). Terrific earthquake in the Punjab and United Provinces.
See (in this Volume) EARTHQUAKES: INDIA: A. D. 1905.
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (August). Resignation of Lord Curzon.
Announcement of the resignation of the Viceroyalty by Lord Curzon was made August 21. The immediate cause of his action was understood to be the refusal of the Home Government to approve his nomination of an officer, General Barrow, whom he wished to have placed on the Viceroy’s Council. But friction between Lord Curzon and the Commander-in-Chief in India, Lord Kitchener, over questions of military administration and the authority belonging to their respective offices had been troublesome for some time past, and the Viceroy had seemed to regard the attitude of the government at home as more favorable to Lord Kitchener than to himself.
INDIA: A. D. 1905 (August). Agreement concerning India between Great Britain and Japan.
See (in this Volume) Japan: A. D. 1905 (August).
INDIA: A. D. 1905-1908. The Starving Poverty of the Mass of the People.
"Suppose we divide the past century into quarters, or periods of twenty-five years each. In the first quarter there were five famines, with an estimated loss of life of 1,000,000. During the second quarter of the century were two famines, with an estimated mortality of 500,000. During the third quarter there there were six famines, with a recorded loss of life of 5,000,000. During the last quarter of the century, what? Eighteen famines, with an estimated mortality reaching the awful totals of from 15,000,000 to 26,000,000. And this does not include the many more millions (over 6,000,000 in a single year) barely kept alive by government doles.
"What is the cause of these famines, and this appalling increase in their number and destructiveness. The common answer is, the failure of the rains. But there seems to be no evidence that the rains fail worse now than they did a hundred years ago. Moreover, why should failure of rains bring famine? The rains have never failed over areas so extensive as to prevent the raising of enough food in the land to supply the needs of the entire population. Why then have people starved? … Because they were so indescribably poor. All candid and thorough investigation into the causes of the famines of India has shown that the chief and fundamental cause has been and is the poverty of the people,—a poverty so severe and terrible that it keeps the majority of the entire population on the very verge of starvation even in years of greatest plenty. …
"And the people are growing poorer and poorer. The late Mr. William Digby, of London, long an Indian resident, in his recent book entitled, _Prosperous India_, shows from official estimates and Parliamentary and Indian Blue Books, that, whereas the average daily income of the people of India in the year 1850 was estimated as four cents per person (a pittance on which one wonders that any human being can live), in 1882 it had fallen to three cents per person and in 1900 actually to less than two cents per person. Is it any wonder that people reduced to such extremities as this can lay up nothing? …
{312}
"One cause of India’s impoverishment is heavy taxation. Taxation in England and Scotland is high, so high that Englishmen and Scotchmen complain bitterly. But the people of India are taxed more than twice as heavily as the people of England and three times as heavily as those of Scotland. According to the latest statistics at hand, those of 1905, the annual average income per person in India is about $6.00, and the annual tax per person about $2.00. …
"Notice the single item of salt-taxation. Salt is an absolute necessity to the people, to the very poorest; they must have it or die. But the tax upon it which for many years they have been compelled to pay has been much greater than the cost value of the salt. Under this taxation the quantity of salt consumed has been reduced actually to one-half the quantity declared by medical authorities to be absolutely necessary for health. …
"Another cause of India’s impoverishment is the destruction of her manufactures, as the result of British rule. … Great Britain wanted India’s markets. She could not find entrance for British manufactures so long as India was supplied with manufactures of her own. So those of India must be sacrificed. England had all power in her hands, and so she proceeded to pass tariff and excise laws that ruined the manufactures of India and secured the market for her own goods.
"A third cause of India’s impoverishment is the enormous and wholly unnecessary cost of her government. …
"Another burden upon the people of India which they ought not to be compelled to bear, and which does much to increase their poverty, is the enormously heavy military expenses of the government. …
"Perhaps the greatest of all the causes of the impoverishment of the Indian people is the steady and enormous drain of wealth from India to England, which has been going on ever since the East India Company first set foot in the land, three hundred years ago, and is still going on with steadily increasing Volume. … Says Mr. R. C. Dutt, author of the _Economic History of India_ (and there is no higher authority), ‘A sum reckoned at twenty millions of English money, or a hundred millions of American money [some other authorities put it much higher], which it should be borne in mind is equal to half the net revenues of India, is remitted annually from this country [India] to England, without a direct equivalent.’"
_J. T. Sunderland, The New Nationalist Movement in India (Atlantic Monthly, October, 1908)._
INDIA: A. D. 1905-1909. The Partition of Bengal. Resentment and Disaffection of the Bengalese. The Swadeshi Movement. Reported improvement of conditions in the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam.
The partition of Bengal, in October, 1905, one of the latest measures of Lord Curzon’s administration of the Government of India, gave rise to much native agitation and disaffection, and is still under criticism in England, but not likely to be undone. In the view of the Anglo-Indian Government the partition was a necessity, because of the magnitude of the province, in territory and population, which made the task of provincial administration too difficult. It was far the largest of the administrative divisions of British India, containing nearly a third of the Indian subjects of the English King. Assam, formerly joined with it, had been separated from it administratively in 1874, under a Chief Commissioner. Fifteen of the eastern districts of Bengal, adjacent to Assam, were now united with the latter to form a new province, called Eastern Bengal and Assam, and this disruption of the old province was resented very passionately by a large part of the Bengalese. They refused to believe the reasons given for the partition, but gave it an offensive explanation, which one of the native journals in Calcutta put briefly as follows: "The objects of the scheme are, briefly, first, to destroy the collective power of the Bengali people; secondly, to overthrow the political ascendency of Calcutta; and, thirdly, to foster in East Bengal the growth of a Mohammedan power which it is supposed will have the effect of keeping in check the rapidly growing strength of the educated Hindu community." In the official British view, on the other hand, the whole stir of Bengalese feeling was artfully wrought up for mischievous ends; but it is easier to believe that something in the nature of a historic sentiment of nationality was really hurt and angered by the partition. Yet Bengal cannot be said to have had anything that resembled a distinct national history for many centuries before it came under the rule of the British East India Company, in 1765. Nor had its name been precisely and continuously attached to any well-defined territory.
Whatever the source of excited feeling may have been, however, it was ardent and persistent, especially in the educated class, and it gave a start to what received the name of the Swadeshi or national movement of hostility to all things English, directed mainly to the boycotting of English merchandise, and to the organization of efforts for promoting home production in all industrial fields. The Swadeshi movement soon spread beyond Bengal; but its stimulations have been centered there. The intensity of the feeling in Bengal was such that on the 16th of October, 1905, when the partition took effect, the Hindus of Calcutta put on mourning garments, suspended business and work, and vowed that its anniversaries should be memorial mourning days. Pupils in native schools became so offensive in their anti-English demonstrations that the Lieutenant-Governor of the new province, Sir Bampfylde Fuller, in February, 1906, unwisely requested the Calcutta University to disaffiliate two schools in the Pabna district, taking away the pecuniary aid they received. The request was disapproved by Lord Curzon’s successor in the Viceroyalty, Lord Minto, and rather than withdraw it the Lieutenant-Governor resigned.
In the winter of 1909 the London _Times_ sent a special correspondent into Eastern Bengal to study the results of the partition, so far as developed in three years. His observations and conclusions were communicated in a long, interesting letter from Dacca, February 15th. He wrote:
"No one can visit the new province, and endeavour to inquire impartially into its condition before the ‘partition,’ without realizing that some administrative division of Bengal had become imperative. Until five years ago, Eastern Bengal was the ‘Cinderella’ of the provinces of India. Good administration stopped short on the line of the Ganges. Beyond that line officers were few, and the interest of the central authorities in their work and in the welfare of the people in their charge was comparatively limited. … {313} Land revenue administration was persistently neglected in the temporary settled tracts. Calcutta and its immediate vicinity, and the more accessible districts of Old Bengal, absorbed the greater part of the time and attention of the Bengal Government. Money was poured out upon Calcutta and its environs, and Eastern Bengal was financially starved. Very little was spent upon education, and the whole riverain region was most inadequately policed. Crime was far more rife in the southern districts of the province than in any other part of India. The peasantry groaned beneath the exactions of the representatives of absentee landlords, and they were left unregarded and unprotected. The whole province suffered because its rulers were immersed in the preoccupations of Calcutta. The very railways were constructed, not to serve the needs of these 30 millions of people, but to meet the requirements of the city on the Hughli. …
"It is remarkable to note how, in the short space of three years, the old deplorable conditions of Eastern Bengal have already undergone a satisfactory process of modification. The province is no longer content to be dragged at the tail of Old Bengal. A new and independent provincial spirit is springing up. Eastern Bengal is beginning to recognize all that a separate existence means to it. Its Civil servants, from the Lieutenant-Governor downwards, take a pride in the great work of regeneration which has been entrusted to them. Their task is enormous, and the workers are far too few. They are like men who have been set to create a new colony out of a land of chaos. They have before them almost as formidable an undertaking as the making of modern Egypt, but it is an Egypt of green rice-fields with half-a-dozen Niles. …
"The demand for higher education in Eastern Bengal is perhaps greater than in any other part of India. The admirable Government College at Dacca has now been provided with splendid buildings, begun, however, before the 'partition.' The whole province is being supplied with a set of colleges adequate to its needs. The staffs of the colleges are being augmented and their administration overhauled. The principal private colleges are also being assisted with liberal grants and transformed into institutions which will give a sound education. The exceptionally large number of 'high' English schools in Eastern Bengal had also been greatly neglected, both those under the Government and those in private hands. All are now being improved, and are receiving liberal assistance. …
"Another important task undertaken by the new Government is that of conducting an elaborate survey and framing a Record of Rights in the zemindari tracts which constitute the bulk of the province. The undertaking was devised before the ‘partition,’ but it has been expedited by the change. It is an extraordinary thing that in all these permanently settled areas there has been hitherto no record and no map. The consequence was that the cultivators were constantly bullied and harassed by the agents of the absentee zemindars, and were never able to feel any reasonable security of tenure of the land they tilled. Land disputes were incessant, and were constantly accompanied by loss of life. In the Backergunge district, the most turbulent area in India, there were frequent riots, of which murders were an almost invariable feature. Since the framing of the Record of Rights in Backergunge this class of crime has already decreased by 50 per cent.
"I have yet to meet anybody, English or Indian, who can tell me in what respect the ‘partition’ has injured a single living soul; while one has only to visit this province, invigorated with new life and inspired by new aspirations, to realize the benefits the severance has conferred upon millions of neglected people. To alter or to modify it now would be suicidal folly; it would be worse, for it would be a criminal blunder. It would not placate the wordy ‘patriots’ of Calcutta, who have used the ‘partition’ as a rallying cry for lack of a better grievance; and it would alienate the 18 millions of backward Mahomedans in the province who have placed their alliance in British honour and British pledges. The Nawab of Dacca, with whom I had a long conversation on the subject, declared that any attempt to meddle with the ‘partition’—an attempt he still seemed to fear was possible—would produce the most deplorable results among his co-religionists. … Nor is there the slightest need for change or modification. The ‘partition’ is already thrice justified in the eyes of all men, save only a few malcontent members of Parliament who know nothing of present conditions in Bengal. Even in Calcutta the outcry, which was always less against the fact of the ‘partition’ than against the motive which the Bengalis erroneously believed to have prompted it, has long ago died away. Yet, justifiable and necessary though the ‘partition’ was, it remains to be added that, apart from its complex administrative problems, Eastern Bengal will never be a very easy province to control. The high-caste Hindus, the Brahmins, the Baidyas, and the Kayasths—the Brahmins and the lesser Brahmins,—rule the roast, and it will be long years before the teeming millions of Mahometan cultivators emerge from their depressed condition. The few Mahomedan families who can claim noble birth are decadent and disappearing. The Hindus have absorbed their lands, the clever lawyers have converted themselves into rich landowners. It is from the ranks of these high-caste Hindus that are drawn the members of the revolutionary societies to which I alluded in a telegraphic despatch sent from this city yesterday. These classes show a persistent and increasing spirit of hostility to the British Raj which no amount of conciliatory measures will overcome. It is impossible to move about the province and to converse with the men who know it best without feeling that the situation is full of dangerous possibilities. The men of Eastern Bengal are more courageous, more determined, more persistent than their compatriots in Old Bengal; and the better classes of Hindus have qualities which are not easily discernible in the Calcutta _babu_. They approach more nearly to the spirit of the Mahrattas of the Deccan than any other section of the people on this side of India. It is a significant fact that most of the prisoners now under trial at Alipur in connexion with the anarchist conspiracy came from Eastern Bengal. But even as one writes one realizes how difficult it is to generalize in this country of startling paradox. {314} Yesterday, in Dacca, 200 Hindu pundits assembled to present a Sanscrit address to the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Lancelot Hare. Many of them had come long distances. They were all old men with great nobility of countenance, some with long beards, others with the face of the Cæsars. And at the conclusion of the ceremony each kindly and venerable scholar advanced, and with great dignity presented the Lieutenant-Governor with a rose. From the bombs of last week to the roses of yesterday, what a gulf lies between the two!"
INDIA: A. D. 1907. Hostility in Western Canada to Hindu Laborers.
See (in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS: CANADA.
INDIA: A. D. 1907 (December). Meeting and Resolution of the All-India Moslem League. Mahomedan loyalty to the British Government. A new factor in Indian politics.
"On December 30th last a Mahomedan Conference, in session at Dacca, the capital of the newly-created Province of Eastern Bengal, departing absolutely from its traditions, openly discussed the question of the protection of Mahomedan interests from a political standpoint, and finally carried unanimously a motion for the formation of an ‘All-India Moslem League’ to promote among the Mahomedans of India feelings of loyalty to the British Government, and to remove any misconceptions that may arise as to the intentions of Government with regard to any of its measures; to protect and to advance the political rights and interests of the Mahomedans of India, and respectfully to represent their needs and aspirations to Government, and to prevent the rise among Mahomedans in India of any feelings of hostility towards other communities, without prejudice to the other objects of the League. A strong Provisional Committee was formed, with power to add to its number, and the joint secretaries appointed were the Nawabs Vicar-ul-mulk and Mohsin-ul-mulk, two of the most important members of the Mahomedan community in India and men of great intellectual capacity. The Committee was charged to frame a constitution within a period of four months, and further to convene a meeting of Indian Mahomedans at a suitable time and place to lay the constitution before such meeting for final approval and adoption. The Rubicon has been crossed; the Mahomedans of India have forsaken the shades of retirement for the political arena; henceforth a new factor in Indian politics has to be reckoned with."
_E. E. Lang, The All-India Moslem League (Contemporary Review, September, 1907)._
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1908. The Outbreak of Anarchism. Summary Measures of Suppression.
The native disaffection in Bengal which became anarchistic in its violence in 1907, and which perpetrated a number of murders before it was suppressed, culminated on the 10th of February, 1909, in the assassination of a prominent native lawyer, Ashutosh Biswas, who had taken part in the prosecution of some of the anarchists. Writing of that crime, from Calcutta, a special correspondent of the London _Times_, who had been pursuing an investigation of the terrorist conspiracy from its beginning, gave an extended account of what he had learned, part of which is given in the following:
"All that can be said with certainty is that the gospel of violence, the creed which advocates the use of any form of force against the British, is Mahratta in its origin; but so far it is the Bengalis alone who have put it into practice. It was conceived in Poona, which city has always continued to inspire and direct it; it was transferred to Baroda, where it flourished in secret among a limited circle; and it was transplanted to Calcutta, where it grew apace, somewhere between the years 1902 and 1904. Certain classes of Bengalis, who are all adepts at intrigue, took up the new idea with enthusiasm; but not all who knocked were admitted to the inner circle. The real conspirators were still probably few in number when the ‘partition’ of Bengal gave the politicians their opportunity. The anarchists were furious at the partition agitation. They were quite content that less militant persons should prepare the ground for them, by preaching to the people of the iniquities of the British Raj; but they were reluctant to see the popular mind actively diverted to such minor issues as _swadeshi_ and the boycott. The extermination of the British was their one and only aim.
"However, as the Congress politicians had succeeded in arousing intense excitement about the partition, the anarchist gang sought to turn the situation to their own advantage. … Recruits were, however, only gradually admitted into the inner ring; and there were many people who associated with the anarchists, and sometimes furnished them with funds, who never took part in their operations. Propaganda formed a prominent feature of the anarchists’ work. In this department the worst types of seditious journals, which have now disappeared, played a great part. Such newspapers as the _Yugantar_ started ‘messes’ and ‘hostels,’ to which subscribers, particularly those residing up-country, were invited to come free of charge. They stayed for a day or two, heard the new gospel preached, and then made way for others. …
"The existence of this considerable organization was not really suspected by the police until after the attempt to wreck Sir Andrew Fraser’s train in December, 1907. Some of the anarchists were under suspicion, and were being watched as notoriously disaffected persons, but even the shooting of Mr. B. C. Allen, District Magistrate of Dacca, in the same month, did not reveal the conspiracy. The police were, however, on the right track; and a couple of days after two unfortunate ladies had been killed by a bomb at Muzaffarpur, on April 30, 1908, they acted. At a house in Calcutta, and in a garden on the outskirts, large seizures of bombs, explosives, and revolvers were made and about 30 alleged anarchists were arrested. Other arrests followed. The famous Manicktollah garden was the principal scene of anarchist activity. It is so secluded that one wonders it was ever discovered. Far on the confines of Calcutta, through a network of mean huts beneath waving palms, a series of winding paths leads to a couple of mouldering gate-pillars innocent of any gate. Within, under shady trees, stands a small building in the last stage of disrepair. It is mean and dirty and squalid, the true squalor of anarchism. If it is only in such a spot that any movement can be hatched for the overthrow of the British Raj, then the British Raj is safe for a long time.
{315}
"The prisoners were taken to the Alipur Gaol, and their trial was commenced at the Alipur Police Court. I visited the Court one day—I think it was the seventieth day of the trial—and marvelled afresh. They were ranged in rows, about 50 men, all young, all huddled together and squatting on their haunches. The only man among them with an intellectual face was Arabindo Ghose, the alleged leader, who sat in a far corner. He has the face of a dreamer, as indeed he is, and with his long hair and short beard might very well pass for a certain type of artistic Frenchman. Whether he be guilty or not is no affair of mine, but his record excites pity. He went to England with brilliant gifts and high hopes, and he had a distinguished career at school and University. But men who profess to know say that he had more than the ordinary share of the rough and tumble of juvenile life amidst alien and often thoughtless comrades, and that those years were made thoroughly unhappy for him. When at last, after he had passed for the Civil Service, he was rejected because he could not pass the horsemanship test, one can perhaps understand that a man of his temperament returned to India with black rage and despair at his heart. But his associates seemed to be mere boys, haggard, wild looking youths of a peculiarly low physical type."
The trial of the prisoners described above, at Alipur, resulted in the condemnation of two to death, six to transportation for life, one to imprisonment for life, and five to imprisonment for terms ranging from one to ten years. The remainder, including the alleged leader, Arabindo Ghose, were acquitted. With the sanction of Lord Morley, the Secretary for India, summary measures were taken to silence the seditious journalism and speech which took a terroristic tone and instigated crime. Loud protests against these measures were called out in England, and one hundred and forty-six Liberal, Labor, and Irish Members of Parliament addressed a note in May last to the Prime Minister, asking his attention to "the fact that ever since the 8th December last nine British subjects in India have been deported from their homes and detained in prison without having been charged with any offence or informed even of the grounds of suspicion entertained against them by the Government of India. Some of them are admitted to be men of high character. None are alleged to have been previously convicted of any crime. Under these circumstances," said the writers, "we may venture to make an urgent appeal to you that they may be either brought to trial or set at liberty."
In his reply Mr. Asquith said: "Such an appeal is perfectly natural, and I am not surprised to find that it is widely and influentially supported. Deportation without trial as a method of dealing with political agitation must necessarily be repugnant to Englishmen, and to no one has the necessity of resorting to such a measure been more repugnant than to Lord Morley. When, however, I am appealed to on behalf of the persons so deported, I must ask you and those who are acting with you to bear in mind that deportation has been resorted to for the sole purpose of preserving the country from grave internal commotion. It is a preventive not a punitive measure, and the responsibility for fixing the period of detention must, therefore, rest with those who are charged with the arduous and anxious duty of maintaining order in India.
"The Secretary of State and the Government of India are, I submit, the only possible judges of the circumstances which may warrant the release or the further detention of the persons deported, and the decision is one which, in my view—and I hope that you and your co-signatories may find yourselves in agreement with me—may be left with absolute confidence in their hands.
"It is particularly necessary at a moment when a great extension of popular representative elements in Indian administration has just been sanctioned by Parliament that none of the various forms of anarchical violence should be tolerated, and that no lawful instrument for suppressing them should be discarded."
One of the trials for seditious journalism which caused most excitement throughout India did not arise from publications in Bengal, but in Bombay. The accused was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a Brahmin, professor of law and mathematics, who conducted a native paper called the _Mahratta_. The specific charge against him was that in his newspaper he had urged the people to demand the restoration of the old Shiwaji religious festivals and, if it was refused, to throw bombs until it was granted. The government contended that he had not incited the people to violence in overt words, but by subtle insinuations and unmistakable innuendo. At his trial in July, 1908, he spoke in his own defence, with great ability, for five days. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six years.
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1908. Mortality Statistics and Birth Rate.
See (in this Volume) PUBLIC HEALTH.
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909. The recent Movements of Discontent. Their Character, Causes, and Meaning. Hindu and Moslem feeling. English attitude. The Past of British Government and its Fruits. Neglect of Education and Political Training. Slight Organization of Local Self-Government. The Governed not taken into the confidence of the Government. Is Democracy forbidden to Asiatic peoples?
The political disaffection in India which has been expressing itself violently within the last few years, not only in seditious speech and print, but in the manner of the Russian terrorists, with bombs and other instruments of anarchy and assassination, was not started by the Bengal Partition and the resentments which that measure gave rise to, but those gave a fresh and strong impulse to feelings that had been in fermentation for some time. Behind that immediate impulse was, undoubtedly, a much stronger one, which came from the startling revelation of the Russo-Japanese War, that one Asiatic people, at least, could outfight one, at least, of the proud and domineering Powers of Europe, and outdo them all in a practical handling of the boasted "Science of the West." Torpid energies and sleeping ambitions were pricked in India by the amazing triumph of the Japanese, as they were elsewhere throughout the East; and it is since 1905 that the demand of the Hindus for a political life of their own has taken a tone which commands the ear of all open-minded and generous Englishmen, like John Morley, and draws from them the response they are now trying to make.
{316}
So far as it is a demand for an Independent Indian Empire, with the whole fabric of British rule swept away, it comes manifestly from nothing that has weight or force in India itself. Probably no Hindu who could make intelligent use of political freedom ever dreams of the present possibility of a nationalized India, in which the 200,000,000 of his own race and creed and the 60,000,000 of Mohammedans (saying nothing of the added millions of other lineages and other faiths) would be peaceful fellow citizens, administering the institutions of self-government in harmony together. The Moslems, at least, are under no illusion as to what would happen if the incongruous elements of the enormous population of India were left politically to themselves, under the conditions that now exist. In 1908, when that idea seemed to be growing in Hindu thought, they organized an "All-India Moslem League," avowedly, as declared by the Nawab of Dacca, "to save themselves from being submerged by an enormous and noisy majority of the other race." "The safety of the Mohammedans," said the president of the conference, "lay in loyalty to the government; they must be prepared to fight for the government if necessary." Thus British rule in its present form has the Moslem dread of Hindu ascendency to give it a substantial support, even though the Hindus outnumber the Moslems by more than three to one. In thinking power, the Hindu is perhaps the higher type of man; but the blood of the Afghan and Mongol conquerors of Hindustan must have transmitted more of political as well as military energy to the Moslems of the present day. The Hindu mind is too mystically metaphysical for the politics of a world that is dominated by its least metaphysical minds.
But the higher intelligence of the Hindus appears to agree with that of the Moslems in understanding that India is in no present condition for taking its political fortunes into its own hands. The really intelligent classes have been making it plain, however, that they do want a more effective participation in the management of their own affairs than has been allowed to them hitherto, and it is the claim of that class which Lord Morley and his colleagues in the British Government are acknowledging and aiming to satisfy. It seems to have been generally and fairly represented in the great conventions assembled annually for many years past, under the name of the "Indian National Congress," an unofficial Congress, possessing no authority, but exercising an influence that has increased. Its character was described a few years ago in one of the American reviews by a writer who said that he had watched it from its birth:
"The Indian National Congress," he wrote, "is avowedly national in its name and scope. The Provincial Congresses which meet in every province for the discussion of provincial matters, unite together in a National Congress, which is annually held at a chosen centre, for the furtherance and discussion of national interests. A Congress consists of from five hundred to one thousand of the political leaders of all parts of India, comprising representatives of noble families, landowners, members of local Boards and municipalities, honorary magistrates, fellows of universities, and professional men, such as engineers, bankers, merchants, shopkeepers, journalists, lawyers, doctors, priests and college professors. The delegates are able to act in concert and to declare in no uncertain accents the common public opinion of the multitude of whom they are the mouthpiece. They are as representative in regard to religion as to rank and profession; Hindus, Parsis, Mohammedans and Christians have in turn presided.
"The deliberations are marked by acumen and moderation. The principal items of their propaganda constitute a practical programme displaying insight and sagacity, and covering most of the political and economic problems of the Indian Empire. I take it upon myself to say, as a watchful eye-witness from its birth, that the Indian National Congress has discharged its duties with exemplary judgment and moderation."
_Sir Henry Cotton, The New Spirit in India (North American Review, November, 1906)._
The meeting of this Indian Congress in 1908 was held at Madras on the 27th of December, not long after Lord Morley had explained his plan for the enlargement of the Legislative Councils in India and for the election of a certain number of their members by popular vote. In the address of the President of the Congress, Dr. Rash Bihari Ghose, the proposed reforms were discussed at length, and welcomed with warmth, as going near, apparently, to satisfying the claims of the majority of those represented in the Congress. "We are now," said the speaker, "on the threshold of a new era. An important chapter has been opened in the history of the relations between Great Britain and India—a chapter of constitutional reform which promises to unite the two countries together in closer bonds than ever. A fair share in the Government of our own country has now been given to us. The problem of reconciling order with progress, efficient administration with the satisfaction of aspirations encouraged by our rulers themselves, which timid people thought was insoluble, has at last been solved. The people of India will now be associated with the Government in the daily and hourly administration of their affairs. A great step forward has thus been taken in the grant of representative government for which the Congress had been crying for years. … We do not know what the future destiny of India may be. We can see only as through a glass darkly. But of this I am assured, that on our genuine co-operation with the British Government depend our future progress and the development of a fuller social and political life. Of this also I am assured, that the future of the country is now in a large measure in our own hands."
At about the same time the All-India Moslem League held its meeting at Amritsar, and gave an equally hearty welcome to the principle of the proposed reforms, but appealed against the mode of election contemplated, which might be to the disadvantage of the Moslem minority. In the address of the President, Mr. Ali Imam, he said: "It is impossible for thoughtful men to approach the subject without regard to the pathetic side of the present situation. {317} It is the liberalism of the great British nation that has taught Indians, through the medium of English education, to admire democratic institutions, to hold the rights of the people sacred above all rights and to claim for their voice first place in the government of the country. The mind of close upon three generations of the educated classes in the land has been fed on the ideas of John Stuart Mill, Milton, Burke, Sheridan and Shelley, has been filled with the great lessons obtainable from chapters of the constitutional history of England and has been influenced by inexpressible considerations arising out of the American War of Independence, the relation of Great Britain with her Colonies, and last, though not least, the grant of Autonomy to the Boers after their subjugation at an enormous sacrifice of men and money. The bitterest critic of the educated Indian will not hold him to blame for his present state of mind. It is the English who have carefully prepared the ground and sown the seed that has germinated into what some of them are now disposed to consider to be noxious weed. It will be a dwarfed imagination however that will condemn the educational policy of the large-hearted and liberal-minded Englishmen who laid its foundation in this country. Those who inaugurated it aimed at raising the people to the level where co-operation and good understanding between the rulers and the ruled are possible. Under the circumstances, the desire of the educated Indian to take a prominent part in the administration of his country is neither unnatural nor unexpected. …
"The best sense of the country recognizes the fact that the progress of India rests on the maintenance of order and internal peace, and that order and internal peace in view of the conditions obtaining in our country at present and for a very long time to come, immeasurably long time to come, spell British occupation. British occupation not in the thin and diluted form in which Canada, Australia and South Africa stand in relation to England, but British occupation in the sense in which our country has enjoyed internal peace during the last 50 years. Believe me that as long as we have not learnt to overcome sectarian aggressiveness, to rise above prejudices based on diversity of races, religions and languages, and to alter the alarming conditions of violent intellectual disparity among the peoples of India, so long British occupation is the principal element in the progress of the country. The need of India is to recognize that true patriotism lies in taking measure of the conditions existing in fact, and devoting one’s self to amelioration. … The creed of the All-India Muslim League is cooperation with the Rulers, coöperation with our non-Muslim countrymen and solidarity amongst ourselves. This is our idea of United India."
These expressions from prominent leaders of the two principal races of India are quite in accord with the judgment of liberal-minded Englishmen, as to the present duty of their government to the people of this great Asiatic Dependency. They are quite in accord with the judgment that has dictated the measure undertaken by the present British Government. They recognize that the relation which England bears to India, however unjustifiable in its origin it may be, is one that cannot be suddenly changed without great danger and certain harm. As Goldwin Smith has said:
"To attempt to strike the balance between the advantages and disadvantages of British rule in India would be to enter into a boundless controversy. Foreign rule in itself must always be an evil. India was rescued by Great Britain from murderous and devastating anarchy. Though at the time she was plundered by official corruption of a good deal of the wealth which, being poor though gorgeous, she could ill afford to lose, she has since enjoyed general peace and order; both, we may be sure, to a far greater extent than she otherwise would have done. The deadly enmity between her races and religions has been controlled and assuaged. …
"It does not appear that there is any considerable migration from the provinces directly under British dominion to those which are under native rule. The people, no doubt, are generally fixed to their habitations by poverty and difficulty of movement; still, if they greatly preferred the native rule, a certain amount of migration to it there would probably be. That the masses of India in general are miserably poor cannot be denied. The question is, whether under the Mogul Emperors they were better off. … The population has vastly increased, and its increase may in some measure account for dearth. With regard to fiscal and commercial questions, it may safely be said that, at all events in late years, there has been no disposition on England’s part to do anything but justice to India.
"India’s complaints, speaking generally, seem to be of things inseparable from foreign rule, the withdrawal of which would be the only remedy. But suppose British rule withdrawn from India, what would follow? Is there anything ready to take its place? would not the result be anarchy, such as prevailed when England came upon the scene, or a struggle for ascendency between the Mahometan and the Hindoo, with another battle of Paniput? Suppose the Mahometan, stronger in spirit though weaker in numbers, to prevail, would his ascendency be more beneficial and less galling to the Hindoo than is that of the English Sahib?"
_Goldwin Smith, British Empire in India (North American Review, September 7, 1906)._
Of the ultimate possibilities of a nationalized unification of the mighty masses of population in the vast peninsula, there can, perhaps, be as much or more said hopefully as against the hope. A writer who believes that there may be an independent India has put an outline of the argument, pro and con, in these few following words:
"India, we are almost tired of hearing, is as large as Europe, putting aside Russia and Scandinavia, with as great a population, as many diverse and heterogeneous nationalities, differing from each other in language, in custom, in religion, and in everything that makes for individuality; and we might as well speak of the Indian nation as the European nation. … To this contention Young India opposes the most emphatic contradiction. India is a nation, a people, a country: its interests and aspirations are one and unique. Railways, telegraphs, post-office, the Press, education, knowledge of English, have welded into one harmonious whole all the manifold centrifugal forces of its vast area. {318} Young India will quote Switzerland as an example of a country with several languages and two conflicting religions, and yet undoubtedly constituting a nation. If the only tongue in which the Madrassi and the Bengali can communicate is English, so let it be. It is sufficient that a medium of communication exists. And it does exist. The educated Indian speaks and writes in English as easily as in his own mother-tongue. It is in English that the most vehement tirades against British rule, whether printed, spoken, or dealt with in private correspondence, are hurled across the land. Politically speaking, Lahore is a suburb of Calcutta. The fact cannot be gainsaid and must be reckoned with. India, as a whole, as a political unit, has found a voice. There is a national India, as there is not a national Europe."
_E. C. Cox, Banger in India (Nineteenth Century, December, 1908)._
This view recognizes, as was recognized in the address of the President of the All-India Moslem League, quoted above, that English rule and English influence have done much towards preparing both the country and the people for the self-government to which the latter are now beginning to aspire. It must be said, however, that most of this preparation has been casually consequent on policies that had no such deliberate intent. Until quite late years there is little sign to be seen in British Indian policy of a thought of developing opportunity and capability in the people to become more than valuable customers and docile wards. While India was in the hands of a commercial company it was managed, naturally, like an imperial estate, with strictly economic objects in view. Even then there was wisely economic consideration given to the general welfare of the people; but it was welfare as seen from the estate-owners' standpoint. The proprietary government did many things for its subjects and servants; bettered their conditions in many ways; added greatly to the equipment of their lives; but it did very little, if anything, toward putting them in the way of bettering things for themselves. It contemplated nothing for India but the perpetuity of its management as an imperial estate, entailed in the possession of a proprietary race.
The taking of this imperial estate from company management into national management has not seemed hitherto to alter the business nature of its administration very much. Its many millions of inhabitants have been better governed and better cared for, without doubt; but the idea of benevolence to them has never been much enlarged beyond the idea of an honestly good overseeing care. Institutions have been provided or encouraged for the educating of a class among them which could be of useful assistance in the caretaking of the mass; but common education for the mass, to qualify them better for the care of themselves, received scant attention till 25 years ago. In the very explanation that is often given of the present discontent in India there is an impeachment of the past treatment of the country by its able and powerful masters. It is said that the educated Hindus find no satisfying career for themselves outside of the service of the government, and that an increasingly large class in excess of the openings which that service can afford has been educated in recent years; that, consequently, the swelling crowd of disappointed place-seekers, whose intelligence and ambition have been whetted in the higher schools and colleges of the Indian Empire, are the disturbers of public content. After a century and a half of supreme British influence and power in India, there ought to have been more and better openings of opportunity for educated young Hindus than through the doors of public office. There would have been if the development of country and people had been conducted with more reference to their benefit, and with less close attention to the interests of British trade.
Since 1882-1883 there has been more endeavor to establish and assist native primary schools; but the percentage of population that they reach is small. The statistics given in an official "Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1905-1906" make the following showing:
Provinces. Number of Number of Institutions Pupils Bengal 43,996 1,232,278 United Provinces 15,708 576,336 Punjab 3,762 211,464 Burma 20,996 385,214 Central Provinces 3,090 209,680 Eastern Bengal and Assam 21,790 722,371 Coorg 116 4,666 North West Frontier Province 1,087 28,496 Madras Presidency 28,258 918,880 Bombay and Sind Presidency 13,865 736,209 Total 152,668 5,025,594
Except in the Punjab and in Eastern Bengal and Assam these figures include both public and private institutions of education, of all grades, from primary schools to colleges. All institutions in which the course of instruction conforms to standards prescribed by the Department of Education or by the University, and which either undergo inspection by the Department or present pupils at public examinations, are classed as "public," but may be under either public or private management. While the schools and colleges seem numerous, it will be seen that they average but 33 pupils each, and give teaching to a slender fraction of the children of the 294,000,000 of people under British rule. In the report from which we quote the proportion of pupils to the estimated population of school-going age is given as 28.4 per cent. of boys and 2.9 per cent. of girls in Bengal; 8.06 per cent. of boys and 0.96 per cent. of girls in the United Provinces; 21.8 per cent. of boys and 1.8 of girls in the Central Provinces; 28.2 per cent, of boys and 2.9 per cent. of girls in Eastern Bengal and Assam; 29 per cent. of boys and 5.4 per cent. of girls in Madras; 31.8 per cent. of boys and 6 per cent of girls in Bombay. The total expenditure on education, from all sources, including fees, was £735,043 in Bengal (increased to £830,415 in 1907-1908); £441,421 in the United Provinces (increased to £491,723 in 1907-1908); £331,038 in the Punjab; £218,445 in Burma; £145,389 in the Central Provinces; £318,788 in Eastern Bengal and Assam; £624,602 in the Madras Presidency (increased to £712,740 in 1907-1908); £685,444 in the Presidency of Bombay (increased to £756,168 in 1907-1908). Total in 1905-1906, £3,500,170. Education in British India cannot be made wide or deep on expenditure of this scale.
{319}
Education in the literary meaning, then, was tardily undertaken and is very limited yet in its extent. Quite as tardy, and quite as scant in the measure until John Morley got the handling of it, has been the political training that England,—greatest of political teachers as she has been for the world at large,—has allowed her Indian subjects to receive. It must not be understood that nothing of self-government has been conceded hitherto to these people. The exact measure of their participation in the management of their own public affairs, and the period within which they have exercised it, are described in the official "Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India" from which the above exhibit of educational institutions is taken. The following is quoted partly from the "Statement" of 1905-1906 and partly from the later one of 1907-1908:
"Local self-government, municipal and rural, in its present form, is essentially a product of British rule. Beginning in the Presidency towns, the principle made little progress until 1870, when it was expressly recognised by Lord Mayo’s Government that ‘local interest, supervision, and care are necessary to success in the management of funds devoted to education, sanitation, medical charity, and local public works.’ The result was a gradual advance in local self-government, leading up to the action taken by Lord Ripon’s Government in 1883-1884, and to various provincial Acts passed about that time, which form the basis of the provincial systems at present in force. Municipal committees now exist in most places having any pretension to importance, and have charge of municipal business generally, including the care and superintendence of streets, roads, fairs and markets, open spaces, water supply, drainage, education, hospitals, and the like. Local and district boards have charge of local roads, sanitary works, education, hospitals, and dispensaries in rural districts. A large proportion of their income is provided by provincial rates. Bodies of port trustees have charge of harbour works, port approaches, and pilotage. There is also a smaller number of non-elective local bodies discharging similar duties in towns other than constituted municipalities, and in cantonments.
"The municipal bodies exist, raise funds, and exercise powers under enactments which provide separately for the special requirements of each province and of the three presidency capitals, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. In the municipalities as a whole about half of the members are elected by the townsfolk under legal rules; in every town some, and in a few minor towns all, of the members are appointed by the Government. In almost every municipal body one or more Government officials sit as members. The number of Indian and non-official members, however, in every province, largely exceeds the number of Europeans and officials. The municipal bodies are subject to Government control in so far that no new tax can be imposed, no loan can be raised, no work costing more than a prescribed sum can be undertaken, and no serious departure from the sanctioned budget for the year can be made, without the previous sanction of the Government; and no rules or bye-laws can be enforced without similar sanction and full publication.
"There were 746 municipalities at the end of 1907-1908, containing within their limits over 16 million people or 7 per cent. of the total population. Generally speaking, the income of municipalities is small. In 1907-1908 their aggregate income amounted to £3,910,000, excluding loans, sales of securities, and other extraordinary receipts. About 40 per cent. of the total is provided by Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and Rangoon. …
"The interest in municipal elections, and in municipal affairs generally, is not usually keen, save in a few cities and large towns; but, as education and knowledge advance, interest in the management of local affairs gradually increases. In most provinces municipal work is fairly well done, and municipal responsibilities are, on the whole, faithfully discharged, though occasional shortcomings and failures occur. The tendency of local bodies, especially in the smaller towns, is to be slow in imposing additional taxes, in adopting sanitary reforms, and in incurring new expenditure. Many members of municipal bodies are diligent in their attendance, whether at meetings for business or on benches for the decision of petty criminal cases."
The elected members of these municipal committees number less than five thousand. This, therefore, is the extent of the class in the whole of British India, which now receives an elementary political training. Nothing more is needed for proving that India cannot possibly be prepared for independent self-government.
In a memorable speech made by Lord Macaulay in 1833 he predicted a time when England’s Indian subjects might demand English institutions, and exclaimed: "Whenever the day comes it will be the proudest in English history." The day has come, and it does not bring pride to England; because her wards in India have not been made ready for what they ask. It will need time to repair the long neglect; but there is no grander fact in recent history than the beginning of the labor of repair. It is to be a work of education, not for the people of India alone, but for Englishmen as well. They are to learn, and have begun to learn, the mistake of egotism and self-sufficiency in their government of these people. Some months ago there was published in _The Times of India_, at Bombay, a number of articles on the causes of the existing discontent, some by English writers, some by Hindus, some by Mohammedans, all seriously and frankly studying the situation, and most suggestive in their thought. The cause emphasized most by one of the English writers is that which always has worked and always will work when one self-complacent and self-confident people undertakes to be an overruling providence for another people, by making laws for it and managing its affairs. The more consciousness there is on the ruling side of just intention and superior knowledge, the less likely it is to satisfy the ruled; because the satisfying of its own judgment of what is good for the latter is assumed to be enough.
During the last half century, at least, the British Government has endeavored, without a doubt, to do good to its Indian subjects, and it has done them great good; but everything has been done in its own way, from its own points of view and upon its own judgment of things needful and good and right. And this is why its Indian subjects not only feel wronged, but are wronged.
{320}
As the writer in _The Times of India_ reminds his countrymen, "right is a relative term," and not, he says, "as we Islanders would have it, an absolute one. A thing that is right for us, with our past training and traditions, may not only seem, but really be, a grave wrong to those whose environment differs from our own." He cites instances of grave mistakes in well-intended legislation that would have been avoided, if the makers of the laws had counseled sufficiently with natives of experience in the matters concerned. One example is in a land alienation act, for the Punjab, which was framed with purely philanthropic motives, being intended to free the native peasantry—the ryots—from thraldom to money lenders, but which, by making the recovery of debts difficult, has trebled the rate of interest to the ryot, who borrows just as much, and mortgages himself instead of mortgaging his land. Alluding to this and to another act of excellent intention but irritating effect, the writer says: "When these worthy aims of government were debated in the Bombay and Punjab legislatures, who was there, among the officials, in touch with Indian feeling and sentiment? Who among the senators ever suggested the possibility that the evil of mortgage and borrowing was not intrinsically an evil in India, but that legislation—our own past legislation—had made it so? Was there no officer of government who could advise the authorities that every Hindoo, almost, is at heart a money lender; that it is second nature to him; that indebtedness in itself is neither reproach nor handicap in his eyes; and that if you take from him his freedom of barter you do take his life?"
"We have failed," says this writer, "to avail ourselves of the material we ourselves have trained." That, undoubtedly, is the cardinal mistake that the English in India have made. Until now, they have not taken the best of India into their confidence and their counsels.
Another of the writers referred to above gave another characterization of the British rule as the natives more generally feel it, in which a deeper working of more subtle irritations can be seen. He wrote:
"Personal rule, the will of the king, God’s anointed and therefore invested with quasi-divine sanction, is the only rule to which the East has been used, which it can like and respect. The people can understand, even while they suffer under, the most extravagant individual caprices; and when the tyranny becomes too intolerable, they always had in the last resort an excellent chance of being able to overthrow it. But they cannot and probably never will understand, still less appreciate, the cold, implacable, inhuman impersonality of the English government. They might as well be governed by a dynamo, without human bowels or passions. It cannot be humanly approached; it has no human side; its very impeccability is exasperating; and the exactitude with which it metes out its machine-made justice, according to inflexible rules and formulae into which no human equation enters, chills and repels the Eastern mind, and its strength is commensurate with its remorselessness."
"They might as well be governed by a dynamo!" That, in this connection, is a powerfully expressive phrase. The dynamo and everything of a dynamic nature—every mechanical motor-working of forces, whether material or political, are naturally congenial to the man of the Western world—understandable by him, serviceable to him—and they are not so to the man of the East. Somewhere in the process of their evolution the one got an aptitude for projecting work outwardly from the worker— action at some remove from the actor—shuttle throwing, for example, carried out from the weaver to the arms and fingers of a machine, and government from the personally governing will to an organic political system—while the other did not. In this, more than in anything else, perhaps, the radical difference of nature between the Occidental and the Oriental peoples is summed up. The one is endowed with a self-enhancing power to act through exterior agencies, of mechanism in his physical labors, of representative institutions in his government, of systems and organisms in all his doings, which the other lacks.
This might have seemed a generation ago to set an insurmountable barrier against the passing of democracy and democratic institutions into Asia; but we have little right to-day to imagine that anything can stop their march.
INDIA: A. D. 1908. American Mission Schools.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: INDIA.
INDIA: A. D. 1908-1909. Passage of the Indian Councils Bill by the British Parliament. Popular Representation in the Legislative Councils introduced. Lord Morley’s explanations of the Measure. Appointment of a native member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council.
The great project of reform in the Government of India which Lord Morley, as Secretary for India in the British Administration, brought before Parliament in December, 1908, embodied fundamentally in what was known during the discussion of it as the Indian Councils Bill, had its origin more than two years before that time, not in the councils of the British Ministry, but in those of the Government of India. The facts of its inception and preliminary consideration were indicated in a British Blue Book of 1908 (Cd. 4426), which contained proposals on the subject from the Government of India, dated October 1, 1908, and the reply of Lord Morley to them, November 27. More recently the early history of the reform project was told briefly by the Viceroy of India, the Earl of Minto, in a speech in Council, on the 28th of March, 1909. He said:
"The material from which the Councils Bill has been manufactured was supplied from the Secretariat at Simla, and emanated entirely from the bureaucracy of the Government of India. It was in August, 1906, that I drew attention in Council in a confidential minute to the change which was so rapidly affecting the political atmosphere, bringing with it questions we could not afford to ignore, which we must attempt to answer, pointing out that it was all-important that the initiative should emanate from us, that the Government of India should not be put in the position of appearance of having its hands forced by agitation in this country or by pressure from home, and that we should be the first to recognize the surrounding conditions and place before his Majesty’s Government the opinion which personal experience and close touch with the everyday life of India entitle us to hold. {321} I consequently appointed the Arundel Committee. That minute was the first seed of our reforms sown more than a year before the first anarchist outrage sent a thrill of shocked surprise throughout India—the attempt to wreck Sir Andrew Fraser’s train in December, 1907. The policy of the Government of India in respect to reforms has emanated from mature consideration of political and social conditions, while the administrative changes they advocated, far from being concessions wrung from them, have been over and over again endangered by the commission of outrages which could not but encourage doubts as to the opportuneness of the introduction of political changes, but which I steadfastly refused to allow to injure the political welfare of the loyal masses in India."
The Indian Councils Bill was printed on the 20th of February, 1909, and its second reading in the House of Lords was moved by Lord Morley in an explanatory speech on the 23d. A prefatory memorandum accompanying the text of the Bill was as follows:
"The object of this Bill is to amend and extend the Indian Councils Acts, 1861 and 1892, in such a way as to provide:
"(i.)For an enlargement of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General and of the existing Provincial Legislative Councils;
"(ii.) For the election of a certain proportion of their members by popular vote; and
"(iii.) For greater freedom to discuss matters of general public interest and to ask questions at their meetings, and more especially for the discussion of the annual financial statements.
"The Executive Councils of the Governments of Madras and Bombay are enlarged, and powers are taken to create Executive Councils in the other Provinces of India, where they now do not exist. Provision is also made for the appointment of Vice-Presidents of the various Councils.
"The details of the necessary arrangements, which must vary widely in the different Provinces, are left to be settled by means of regulations to be framed by the Government of India and approved by the Secretary of State."
In his speech on moving the second reading of the Bill, Lord Morley said: "I invite the House to take to-day the first definite and operative step in carrying out the policy which I had the honour of stating to your lordships just before Christmas, and which has occupied the active consideration both of the Home Government and of the Government of India for very nearly, if not even more than, three years. The statement was awaited in India with an expectancy that with time became almost impatience, and it was received in India—and that, after all, is the point to which I looked with the most anxiety—with intense interest and attention and various degrees of approval, from warm enthusiasm to cool assent and acquiescence. So far as I know … there has been no sign in any quarter, save possibly in the irreconcilable camp, of organized hostile opinion among either Indians or Anglo-Indians. …
"There are, I take it, three classes of people that we have to consider in dealing with a scheme of this kind. There are the extremists, who nurse fantastic dreams that some day they will drive us out of India. In this group there are academic extremists and physical force extremists, and I have seen it stated on a certain authority—it cannot be more than guessed— that they do not number, whether academic or physical force extremists, more than one-tenth, I think, or even 3 per cent., of what are called the educated class in India. The second group nourish no hopes of this sort, but hope for autonomy or self-government of the colonial species and pattern. And then the third section of this classification ask for no more than to be admitted to co-operation in our administration, and to find a free and effective voice in expressing the interests and needs of their land. I believe the effect of the reforms has been, is being, and will be to draw the second class, who hope for colonial autonomy, into the third class, who will be content with being admitted to a fair and full co-operation."
As to the objections raised by the Mahomedans of India, to the plans of the measure for their representation in the Councils, Lord Morley announced the readiness of the Government to yield to them. "We," he said, "suggested to the Government of India a certain plan. We did not prescribe it, we did not order it, but we suggested and recommended this plan for their consideration—no more than that. It was the plan of a mixed or composite electoral college, in which Mahomedans and Hindus should pool their votes, so to say. The wording of the recommendation in my dispatch was, as I soon discovered, ambiguous—a grievous defect, of which I make bold to hope I am not very often in public business guilty. But, to the best of my belief, under any construction the plan of Hindus and Mahomedans voting together in a mixed and composite electorate would have secured to the Mahomedan electors, wherever they were so minded, the chance of returning their own representative in their due proportion. The political idea at the bottom of that recommendation which has found so little favour was that such composite action would bring the two great communities more closely together, and this idea of promoting harmony was held by men of very high Indian authority and experience who were among my advisers at the India Office. But the Mahomedans protested that the Hindus would elect a pro-Hindu upon it, just as I suppose in a mixed college of say 75 Catholics and 25 Protestants voting together the Protestants might suspect that the Catholics voting for the Protestant would choose what is called a Romanizing Protestant and as little of a Protestant as possible. … At any rate, the Government of India doubted whether our plan would work, and we have abandoned it. I do not think it was a bad plan, but it is no use, if you are making an earnest attempt in good faith at a general pacification, out of parental fondness for a clause interrupting that good process by sitting too tight.
"The Mahomedans demand three things. I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation from them and I know very well what is in their minds. They demand the election of their own representatives to these councils in all the stages, just as in Cyprus, where, I think, the Mahomedans vote by themselves. They have nine votes and the non-Mahomedans have three, or the other way about. {322} So in Bohemia, where the Germans vote alone and have their own register. Therefore we are not without a precedent and a parallel for the idea of a separate register. Secondly, they want a number of seats in excess of their numerical strength. Those two demands we are quite ready and intend to meet in full. There is a third demand that, if there is a Hindu on the Viceroy’s Executive Council—a subject on which I will venture to say a little to your lordships before I sit down—there should be two Indian members on the Viceroy’s Council and that one should be a Mahomedan. Well, as I told them and as I now tell your lordships, I see no chance whatever of meeting their views in that way to any extent at all."
Turning to a much criticised feature of the projected remodelling of Indian Government—namely, the announced intention of the Government to name an Indian member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council—the Secretary reminded the House that this was not touched by the pending bill, for the reason that the appointment of that Council lies already within the province of the Crown. In meeting the objections raised to this part of the reform project, he amused the House greatly by remarking: "Lord MacDonnell said the other day: ‘I believe you cannot find any individual native gentleman who has enjoyed the general confidence who would be able to give advice and assistance to the Governor-General in Council.’ It has been my lot to be twice Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I do not believe I can truly say I ever met in Ireland a single individual native gentleman who ‘enjoyed general confidence.’ And yet I received at Dublin Castle most excellent and competent advice. Therefore I will accept that statement from the noble lord. The question is whether there is no one of the 300 millions of the population of India who is competent to be the officially-constituted adviser of the Governor-General in Council in the administration of Indian affairs. You make an Indian a Judge of the High Court, and Indians have even been acting-Chief Justices. As to capacity, who can deny that they have distinguished themselves as administrators of native States, where far more demand is made on their resources, intellectual and moral? It is said that the presence of an Indian member would cause restraint in the language of discussion. For a year and a half I have had two Indians at the Council of India, and I have never found the slightest restraint whatever."
Debate on the Bill in the House of Lords was resumed on the 4th of March, and it was amended by striking out a clause which gave power to constitute provincial executive councils in other provinces than Madras and Bombay, where they were already existing. It then passed through Committee, and on the 11th of March it was read a third time and passed by the Upper House.
A fortnight later, Lord Morley brought into exercise the authority possessed by the Crown, to appoint on its own judgment a native member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. His choice fell on a distinguished Hindu lawyer, Mr. Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, of whom the London _Times_, on announcing the appointment, said: "Mr. Sinha now fills the office of Advocate-General of Bengal, to which he was not long ago promoted, and he will succeed Sir Henry Richards as Legal Member of Council. Of his fitness to discharge the departmental duties of his new position we make no question. Lord Morley has doubtless satisfied himself that the qualifications of his nominee in this respect will not discredit the experiment on which he has ventured. But, however high those qualifications, and however well they may stand the test of experience, gifts and attainments of another order are needed for the post to which Lord Morley has named him. A member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council is much more than a departmental chief. … For him there are no State secrets and no confidential documents. He has a right to know and to debate the _imperii arcana_. The most delicate mysteries of diplomacy, the most carefully guarded of military precautions, are trusted to his faith and to his discretion. Breadth of political knowledge and of judgment, insight into men and things, a sure sense and grasp of realities, coolness, courage, and rapid decision in emergencies, absolute impartiality between native races, creeds, and classes, and an instinctive devotion to England, to her traditions and to her ideals, are amongst the qualities which have been deemed the best recommendations for so immense a trust. Mr. Sinha may possess them all, but they are rare amongst the men of any race, and some of them are notoriously uncommon amongst Orientals."
This expresses the English opinion that objects to the admission of Indians to the Executive Councils of Indian Government, even while assenting to their representation in the Legislative Councils of the dependency. It is to be hoped that Mr. Sinha will help to weaken that opinion. Reports from India on the appointment were to the effect that it had given great general satisfaction.
On the return of the Councils Bill to the Commons the clause which the Lords had stricken out was restored, but in a modified form. Authority to extend the creation of provincial executive councils was given, but with the reservation to the House of Lords as well as to the House of Commons of a veto upon the establishment of such councils in any new provinces, except Bengal. As thus amended the clause was accepted by the Upper House and became law, May 25, 1909.
The following are the essential provisions of the Act:
"I. (1) The additional members of the councils for the purpose of making laws and regulations (hereinafter referred to as Legislative Councils) of the Governor-General and of the Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay, and the members of the Legislative Councils already constituted, or which may hereafter be constituted, of the several Lieutenant-Governors of Provinces, instead of being all nominated by the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor in manner provided by the Indian Councils Acts, 1861 and 1892, shall include members so nominated and also members elected in accordance with regulations made under this Act, and references in those Acts to the members so nominated and their nomination shall be construed as including references to the members so elected and their election.
{323}
"(2) The number of additional members or members so nominated and elected, the number of such members required to constitute a quorum, the term of office of such members and the manner of filling up casual vacancies occurring by reason of absence from India, inability to attend to duty, death, acceptance of office, or resignation duly accepted, or otherwise, shall, in the case of each such council, be such as may be prescribed by regulations made under this Act:
"Provided that the aggregate number of members so nominated and elected shall not, in the case of any Legislative Council mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act, exceed the number specified in the second column of that schedule.
" 2. (1) The number of ordinary members of the councils of the Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay shall be such number not exceeding four as the Secretary of State in Council may from time to time direct, of whom two at least shall be persons who at the time of their appointment have been in the service of the Crown in India for at least twelve years.
"(2) If at any meeting of either of such councils there is an equality of votes on any question, the Governor or other person presiding shall have two votes or the casting vote.
"3. (1) It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, by proclamation, to create a council in the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William for the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the province, and by such proclamation—
"(_a_) to make provision for determining what shall be the number (not exceeding four) and qualifications of the members of the council; and
"(_b_) to make provision for the appointment of temporary or acting members of the council during the absence of any member from illness or otherwise, and for the procedure to be adopted in case of a difference of opinion between a Lieutenant-Governor and his council, and in the case of equality of votes, and in the case of a Lieutenant-Governor being obliged to absent himself from his council from indisposition or any other cause.
"(2) It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council, with the like approval, by a like proclamation to create a council in any other province under a Lieutenant-Governor for the purpose of assisting the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the province: Provided that before any such proclamation is made a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than sixty days during the session of Parliament, and, if before the expiration of that time an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft.
"(3) Where any such proclamation has been made with respect to any province the Lieutenant-Governor may, with the consent of the Governor-General in Council, from time to time make rules and orders for the more convenient transaction of business in his council, and any order made or act done in accordance with the rules and orders so made shall be deemed to be an act or order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
"(4) Every member of any such council shall be appointed by the Governor-General, with the approval of His Majesty, and shall, as such, be a member of the Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor, in addition to the members nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor and elected under the provisions of this Act.
"4. The Governor-General, and the Governors of Fort Saint George and Bombay, and the Lieutenant-Governor of every province respectively shall appoint a member of their respective councils to be Vice-President thereof, and, for the purpose of temporarily holding and executing the office of Governor-General or Governor of Fort Saint George or Bombay and of presiding at meetings of Council in the absence of the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor, the Vice-President so appointed shall be deemed to be the senior member of Council and the member highest in rank, and the Indian Councils Act, 1861, and sections sixty-two and sixty-three of the Government of India Act, 1833, shall have effect accordingly.
"5. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Councils Act, 1861, the Governor-General in Council, the Governors in Council of Fort Saint George and Bombay respectively, and the Lieutenant-Governor or Lieutenant-Governor in Council of every province, shall make rules authorising at any meeting of their respective legislative councils the discussion of the annual financial statement of the Governor-General in Council or of their respective local governments, as the case may be, and of any matter of general public interest, and the asking of questions, under such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed in the rules applicable to the several councils.
"(2) Such rules as aforesaid may provide for the appointment of a member of any such council to preside at any such discussion in the place of the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor, as the case may be, and of any Vice-President.
"(3) Rules under this section, where made by a Governor in Council, or by a Lieutenant-Governor, or a Lieutenant-Governor in Council, shall be subject to the sanction of the Governor-General in Council, and where made by the Governor-General in Council shall be subject to the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, and shall not be subject to alteration or amendment by the Legislative Council of the Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor.
"6. The Governor-General in Council shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, make regulations as to the conditions under which and manner in which persons resident in India may be nominated or elected as members of the Legislative Councils of the Governor-General, Governors, and Lieutenant-Governors, and as to the qualifications for being, and for being nominated or elected, a member of any such council, and as to any other matter for which regulations are authorised to be made under this Act, and also as to the manner in which those regulations are to be carried into effect. Regulations under this section shall not be subject to alteration or amendment by the Legislative Council of the Governor-General.
{324}
"7. All proclamations, regulations and rules made under this Act, other than rules made by a Lieutenant-Governor for the more convenient transaction of business in his council, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made."
FIRST SCHEDULE.
MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF NOMINATED AND ELECTED MEMBERS OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS.
Maximum Legislative Council. Number.
Legislative Council of the Governor-General 60
Legislative Council of the Governor of Fort Saint George 50
Legislative Council of the Governor of Bombay 50
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Bengal division of the Presidency of Fort William 50
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh 50
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Eastern Bengal and Assam 50
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of the Punjab 30
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Burma 30
Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of any Province which may hereafter be constituted 30
As will be seen, the Act only conveys in outline to the Government of India the authority needed for introducing the intended reforms, leaving all constructive details to be filled out by the latter in regulations and rules. Six months were occupied in that task by the Indian Government, and the resulting prescriptions were published on November 15th, in a document filling 450 pages of print. The following is a summary of them, communicated to _The Times_ by its Calcutta correspondent:
"They comprise, first, a short notice bringing the new Councils Act into force; secondly, the rules and regulations for guiding the constitution of the enlarged Imperial and Provincial Councils, with election rules; thirdly, rules for the discussion of the annual financial statement and general resolutions and for the asking of questions; and, fourthly, a Government resolution explaining the reasons for the changes made and their main details.
"The resolution shows that the Imperial Council will consist of 68 members, while the number of members in each of the Provincial Councils will be as follows:—Bengal, 51; Madras and Bombay, each 48; the United Provinces, 49; Eastern Bengal and Assam, 43; the Punjab, 27; and Burma, 18.
"The Viceroy’s Council has an official majority of three, while all the Provincial Councils have non-official majorities, ranging from 14 in Bengal to three in Burma. In the Viceroy’s Council the Mahomedans will have in the first Council six members elected by purely Mahomedan electorates, and will also presumably get seats in Sind and the Punjab, as the resolution says that a representative of the Bombay landholders on the Imperial Council will be elected at the first, third, and subsequent alternate elections by the Sind landholders, the great majority of whom are Mahomedan, and at the other elections by the Sirdars of Gujarat and the Deccan, the majority of whom are Hindus.
"Again, the Punjab landholders consist equally of Mahomedans and non-Mahomedans, and presumably a Mahomedan will be alternately chosen. Accordingly, it has been decided that at the second, fourth, and alternate elections, when these two seats shall not be held by Mahomedans, there shall be two special electorates consisting of Mahomedan landholders who are entitled to vote for the member representing them in the Imperial Council, and the landowners of the United Provinces and of Eastern Bengal and Assam respectively. The Bombay Mahomedan member of the Imperial Council will be elected by the non-official Mahomedan members of the Provincial Council.
"The tea and jute industries get five members on the Provincial Councils of the Bengals and Madras.
"All members are required to take the oath of allegiance to the Crown before sitting on any of the Councils, and no person is eligible for election if the Imperial or a Provincial Government is of opinion that his election would be contrary to public interest. This provision takes the place of the old power to reject members selected by the electorate.
"The examination of the annual financial proposals is divided into three parts. The first allows a chance for discussing any alteration in taxation and any new loan or grant to a local Government. Under the second any head of revenue or expenditure will be explained by the member in charge of the Department concerned and any resolution may be moved, and at the third stage the Finance Minister presents his budget and explains why any resolutions will not be accepted, a general discussion following.
"The resolution concludes as follows:
"The new Provincial Councils will assemble early in January and the Imperial Council in the course of that month. …
"‘The _maximum_ strength of the Councils was 126; it is now 370. There are now 135 elected members against 39, while an elected member will sit as of right, needing no official confirmation. The functions of the Councils are greatly enlarged. Members can demand further information in reply to formal answers and discussion will be allowed on all matters of public interest. They will also in future be enabled to take a real and active part in shaping financial proposals. They will have liberal opportunity to criticize and to initiate and suggest definite resolutions.'"
As operative at the center of discontent, in Bengal, an unfortunate defect in the regulations was soon discovered, which made trouble at once. It was reported to _The Times_ as follows:
"The regulations for the election of the new Councils have produced a political situation here which will be scarcely intelligible to those who are not acquainted with the peculiarities of the Bengali character. The educated classes in Calcutta were in despair when they discovered that the rules virtually excluded their leaders, and the more extreme men seized the opportunity of advocating a boycott of the reforms. Sir Edward Baker, however, promptly recognized that the regulations required modification. The rule which restricted the candidates for the representation of district boards and municipalities to present members of these bodies was at once altered so as to include those who had at any time served for three years on a local authority. The effect of this concession was to render eligible many previously excluded. {325} Further, when it was pointed out that Mr. Surendranath Banerjee was shut out by the rule disqualifying dismissed Government servants, Sir Edward Baker spontaneously intimated to the Bengali leader that he was exempted from the operation of this regulation. But, in spite of these conciliatory steps, pressure is being put on Mr. Banerjee to refuse to stand, apparently on the ground that, as many of the well-known Moderates are still ineligible, it is incumbent on Mr. Banerjee to refuse his services to his country rather than weaken the force of a united protest."—These persuasions had success. Mr. Banerjee refused to be a candidate.
The following report from Dacca, December 29, indicates the result: "The Council elections for Eastern Bengal are not yet complete. They show, however, a marked preponderance of Mahomedan representation, due to the deliberate abstention of the Hindu electorate. This abstention has been worked from Calcutta in accordance with the manifesto issued by the Bengali leaders. It is very noticeable among the Zemindar voters, who are mainly Hindu. The idea is that the Government will nominate Hindu representatives and will thus defeat the object of the Reform Scheme."
INDIA: A. D. 1909 (July). Assassination in London of Sir W. Curzon-Wyllie by an Indian Anarchist.
The virulence of the hostility in India to British rule, as developed in schools of anarchism and terrorism, was shown startlingly to England on the 1st of July, 1909, when Lieutenant-Colonel Sir William Curzon-Wyllie and Dr. Cawas-Lalcaca, a Parsee, were shot dead by an Indian student, at the close of a reception held in the Imperial Institute at London. Sir Curzon-Wyllie, formerly of the Indian Staff Corps, had been serving since 1901 as political aide-de-camp to the Secretary of State for India, at London. The reception at which he was assassinated was one of the evenings "At Home" of the National Indian Association, held mainly for the purpose of giving the many young Indians residing temporarily in England an opportunity for social intercourse with friendly English people. The assassin, a student named Dhinagri, came as a guest. His brother, a doctor in Calcutta, hearing that he had been coming under anarchist influences, had asked Sir Curzon-Wyllie some time before to talk with him, and that gentleman had done so, with no effect apparently, but to rouse his resentment. The motive of the crime, however, appears to have been wholly in the desire to make a display of "patriotism" and to achieve distinction as a martyr to the cause of liberty for India. The victim might easily have been some other. Sir Curzon-Wyllie was leaving the place when he paused to speak to Dhinagri, and received two deadly bullets at close range, in the face. Dr. Lalcaca, who stood near, rushed forward to intervene, and the pistol was turned on him. Others seized the assassin before he could do more.
When tried and convicted, on the 23d of July, and asked if he had anything to say, Dhinagri replied angrily: "I have told you over and over again that I do not acknowledge the authority of the Court. You can do whatever you like. I do not mind at all. You can pass sentence of death on me. I do not care, but remember that one day we shall be all powerful, and then we can do what we like. That is all I want to say." On being sentenced to death, the prisoner, making an Oriental salute to the Judge, said,—"Thank you, my Lord. I don’t care. I am proud to have the honour of laying down my life for the cause of my country."
The family of Dhinagri, in India, employed counsel to attend his trial, who announced to the court that they viewed his crime with the greatest abhorrence.
----------INDIA: End--------
INDIAN (EAST) IMMIGRATION: The resistance to it in South Africa, Australia, and elsewhere.
(See in this Volume) RACE PROBLEMS.
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, The.
See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907-1909.
INDIAN TERRITORY. United with Oklahoma to form the State of Oklahoma.
See (in this Volume) UNITED STATES. A. D. 1906 (JUNE).
INDIANS, The American: End of the Tribal Autonomy of the Five Civilized Tribes.
The last of the proceedings for ending the autonomy of the Five Civilized Tribes making them citizens of the United States, and dividing their tribal lands among them individually, was finished in the summer of 1902, by the Cherokee Council, which ratified agreements already accepted by the other four tribes.
See, Volume VI., INDIANS, AMERICAN: A. D. 1893-1899.
According to Mr. William Dudley Foulke, who investigated the circumstances, the Creek nation has suffered grievous frauds in the final settlement of their land affairs, by the operation of the Curtis Act, in the matter of the sale of town sites. Mr. Foulke’s account of the case is given in an article entitled "Despoiling a Nation," published in January 2, 1908.
INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION.
See (in this Volume) LABOR.
INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS (capitalistic).
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL.
INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS (of the employed).
See (in this Volume) LABOR.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (UNITED STATES), of 1898-1902: On the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, of 1898, applied to Railroads.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1890-1902.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (UNITED STATES), of 1898-1902: On Hours of Labor.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902.
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION.
INHERITANCE TAX: Defeated Proposal in Germany.
See (in this Volume) Germany: A. D. 1908-1909; also, DEATH DUTIES.
INITIATIVE.
See (in this Volume) REFERENDUM.
INJUNCTIONS, in Labor Disputes.
See (in this Volume) LAW AND ITS COURTS: UNITED STATES.
INLAND WATERWAYS COMMISSION.
See (in this Volume) CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.
INMEDIATISTAS.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHT, The.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
INSURANCE, AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT.
See (in this Volume) POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: UNEMPLOYMENT; GERMANY.
{326}
INSURANCE, Industrial.
See (in this Volume) LABOR PROTECTION.
INSURANCE, Life: The Legislative Investigation of Companies doing business in the State of New York, in 1905. Startling Disclosures of Vicious Management in the greater organizations, and of Perfunctory State Superintendence. Report and Recommendations of the Committee. Remedial Legislation.
A conflict in the Board of Directors of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of New York, which came to public knowledge in February, 1905, afforded the beginning of exciting revelations, as to practices and conditions in the management of the stupendous organizations of life insurance that are centered in New York City.
The Equitable Society was founded in 1859 by Henry B. Hyde as a stock company, with a capital of $100,000, in 1000 shares, and neither its legal constitution nor its capital had been changed; but its assets at the end of the year 1904, according to its statement, had grown to the enormous total of $412,438,380, and it held a surplus over liabilities of $80,394,861. This prodigious fund had come under the control of the holders of the small capital stock of the company—$100,000; and practically it was controlled by one stockholder, James Hazen Hyde, son of the deceased founder, who had inherited a majority of the shares. By the Charter of the Society, its stockholders were entitled to semi-annual dividends at a rate not exceeding 3½ per cent., and its business was to be conducted on the mutual plan: that is, earnings and receipts above dividends, losses and expenses were to be accumulated and policy holders were to be credited with equitable shares of the net surplus, after sufficient deduction to cover outstanding risks and other obligations. Nevertheless, the opportunities for personal enrichment, afforded by the controlling of the great floods of money poured into its coffers had been found to be immense.
James Hazen Hyde, inheritor of the majority of stock, was Vice President of the company. Under the terms of his father’s will he had not yet come into personal possession of his inheritance, but would do so in a short time. The President of the company, James Alexander, appears to have become anxious as to the use the young man would make of the power of that possession when it came to him, and he entered on a movement toward changing the organization of the Equitable Society, to make it a mutual institution in reality, by securing to the policy holders a voice in the election of directors, leaving their board no longer a body to be chosen by a single man. This movement became necessarily public, and the situation in the company was exposed to public knowledge in a sudden and startling way. Flood-gates of discussion were opened and questions started which ran from the Equitable to other mammoths of life insurance organization that had grown up. Facts came to light which showed the magnitude of financial power they had drawn into small circles of men and families, and the extravagance of compensation appropriated to themselves by some of these self-appointed and self-perpetuated administrators of life insurance funds. Such disclosures became the sensation, not merely of a day, but of months.
At the outset of the undertaking of President Alexander to reform the constitution of the Equitable, Vice-President Hyde was able easily to defeat his movement and make good his own mastery of the board of directors; but as the public became a party to the controversy, more and more, it bore down Mr. Hyde. In April the directors were constrained to appoint a committee to investigate and report on "the present management of the society." The committee, composed of H. C. Frick, E. H. Harriman, Brayton Ives, Cornelius N. Bliss, and M. E. Ingalls, made a report on the 2d of June which was a deadly indictment of the society, on many counts,—for "excessive salaries, excessive commissions, excessive expenses, superfluous offices," and a "general looseness in the administration of its affairs." Mr. Hyde and his board made a show of disputing the findings of the committee and rejecting its recommendations, but the atmospheric pressure from outside proved irresistible, and they gave way to it. Mr. Hyde sold his 502 shares of stock to Thomas F. Ryan for $2,500,000 cash, Mr. Ryan making it a condition of the purchase that the Honorable Paul Morton, formerly prominent in railway administration and lately Secretary of the Navy in President Roosevelt’s cabinet, should be chairman of the Equitable board of directors and should have a free hand in reorganizing its management. Mr. Ryan then, on the 15th of June, placed the shares in a voting trust, composed of ex-President Grover Cleveland, Justice Morgan J. O’Brien, and George Westinghouse. The deed of transfer to these trustees empowered them to carry out a plan of mutualization, to the end that the society’s policy holders should elect a majority of the directors in its board.
The Equitable Life Assurance Society was now in a fair way to be placed on a footing that would justify its name; but the events which accomplished this had created an imperative demand for thorough proceedings of law, to reform and regulate the whole system under which the profoundly serious obligations and responsibilities of life insurance are fulfilled. The first step to that end was taken by the Legislature of the State of New York on the 20th of July, 1905, when it appointed a joint committee of the Senate and Assembly and directed the committee "to investigate and examine into the business and affairs of life insurance companies doing business in the State of New York, with reference to the investments of said companies, the relation of the officers thereof to such investments, the relation of such companies to subsidiary corporations, the government and control of said companies, the contractual relations of said companies to their policy holders, the cost of life insurance, the expenses of said companies, and any other phase of the life insurance business deemed by the committee to be proper, for the purpose of drafting and reporting to the next session of the Legislature such a revision of the laws regulating and relating to life insurance in this State as said committee may deem proper."
{327}
This most notable investigating committee was composed of Senators William W. Armstrong, William J. Tully, D. J. Riordan, and Assemblymen James T. Rogers, W. W. Wemple, Ezra P. Prentice, John McKcown. It was organized on the 1st of August, with Senator Armstrong as its chairman, and opened public hearings on the 5th of September following, having engaged for its counsel Messrs. Charles E. Hughes and James McKeen. Mr. Hughes was little known to the public at large when he accepted the duty of conducting this investigation. It revealed him to the State and the Nation, and was the fortunate introduction to public life of a man of rare nobility in character and of remarkable powers.
Eighteen insurance companies doing business in New York were subjected to investigation; but interest in the proceeding was centered with intensity on the probing of the affairs of a few of the greater institutions, such as the Equitable, the Mutual Life, the New York Life, the Prudential, and the Metropolitan. The disclosures were rich in sensation; a few only can be noted here. As to salaries, for example: in the Equitable, the late Henry B. Hyde and his successor, Mr. Alexander, as presidents, had received $75,000 per annum in the early years and $100,000 in the later years of their terms. James H. Hyde, graduated from college in 1898 and made vice-president the next year, on his father’s death, received in the first year $25,000, in the next two years $30,000, in his fourth year $75,000, and thereafter $100,000. Second vice-presidents were paid as high as $50,000 per annum; third vice-presidents as high as $40,000; fourth vice-presidents as high as $30,000. Salaries of secretaries and comptrollers had run up to $25,000 and $30,000. Thirteen executive officers in the society whose salaries aggregated $297,600 in 1900, were drawing $448,500 in 1905.
Executive officers in the Mutual Life surpassed even this experience of bounty. The president’s salary had been $30,000 from 1877 to 1885, $50,000 from 1886 to 1892, then raised to $75,000 in 1893, to $90,000 in 1895, to $100,000 in 1896, and to $150,000 in 1901. Richard A. McCurdy had been president for twenty years and vice-president for the preceding twenty. The vice-president’s salary had grown from $20,000 in 1877 to $50,000 in 1902; the treasurer’s had been $40,000 since 1896.
In the New York Life the salary of the president, John A. McCall, had stopped its increment at $100,000, which it reached in 1901. The second vice-president’s salary went to $75,000 the same year. The total salaries of executive officers were raised from $149,000 in 1893 to $322,000 in 1905.
Agency commissions were sometimes richer sources of income than the fixed salaries of these generous companies. In the Mutual Life Company, the president’s son, Robert H. McCurdy, had an interest in the general agency of the company for New York City from which he drew $530,788 between 1889 and 1904; besides which, as superintendent of the foreign department of the company, he was paid commissions on its foreign business which yielded him $1,268,390 between 1886 and 1905; some part of which commissions, however (to an amount not ascertained), were shared by him with his partner in the New York City agency. The total net profits of that metropolitan agency,—in which the president’s son-in-law was likewise a partner,—were found by the investigating committee to have been $2,389,123 in the twelve years 1893-1904.
These, however, were not the worst, in their moral implications, of the disclosures that resulted from the search light brought to bear on the administration of certain life insurance companies by the Legislative Committee and Mr. Hughes. A startling share of the prodigal expenditures of some boards, from the excessive profits of their business, went secretly, with no accounting, to undiscoverable purposes, which were purposes, of course, that would not bear questioning. The following, from the report of the investigating Committee on the Mutual Life Company, is indicative of the glimpses given of foul uses to which the funds of that company were applied. "For a considerable period," says the report, "it has been the practice for the Committee on Expenditures to authorize the payment to its chairman of $25,000 every few months, or from $75,000 to $100,000 a year, upon the request of one of the executive officers. The persons to whom the moneys were to be paid by the company, or the services, if any, for which the payment was to be made, were not known to the committee, and the only voucher was the receipt of the chairman of the committee who received and paid over the money in cash. There was no reason for this practice save to conceal the purposes for which the moneys were used, and it obviously facilitated improper payments.
"There were also a large number of payments charged to legal expenses which were made upon the recommendation of one Andrew C. Fields, who for many years was the head of the ‘Supply Department.’ He was in actual charge of and gave a large part of his time to matters of legislation. For many years the company maintained under his care a house at Albany, and through him and his agents a close watch was kept upon the proceedings of the Legislature. The rent of this house, the supplies there consumed, and the wages of the cook and other servants, were charged to ‘legal expenses.’ Fields left for parts unknown soon after the Committee began its hearings and it has not been able to procure his testimony. It appears, however, that he acted also for the Equitable, and from their records have been produced a series of memoranda of instructions sent Fields by Thomas D. Jordan, its comptroller, whose whereabouts the Committee has been unable to ascertain, although it has made diligent effort to do so."
The Committee quotes extensively from these memoranda of "T. D. J.," who instructs his Albany lobbyist what bills the latter is to "kill," and what he is to support. There are depths of corruption suggested by this story of the hospitable Andrew Fields, the vigilant Thomas D. Jordan, their "legal expenses" for hospitable house-keeping at Albany, and the sudden vanishment of both when Mr. Hughes began to do his questioning; but the depths are left unfathomed, because the Committee found no sounding line.
"The testimony taken by the committee," says their report, "makes it abundantly clear that the large insurance companies systematically attempted to control legislation in this and other States which could affect their interests, directly or indirectly, and that in this effort Fields, who concerned himself mainly with this State, played a most important role. {328} The three companies [Mutual, New York Life, and Equitable] divided the country, outside of New York and a few other States, so as to avoid a waste of effort, each looking after legislation in its chosen district and bearing its appropriate part of the total expense." The so-called "legal expenses" of the Mutual in seven years, 1898-1904, exceeded two millions of dollars. "In 1904 they amounted to $364,254.95, while those of the New York Life and Equitable for the same year were $172,698.42 and $204,019.25 respectively."
The New York Life employed one Andrew Hamilton to give attention to matters of legislation throughout the country, and the company was found to have paid him no less than $1,167,697 for "legal expenses," between 1895 and 1905, no vouchers being filed beyond Hamilton’s receipt. And these "legal expenses were in addition to all the ordinary outlays in connection with suits or legal proceedings or the work of the legal department of the company."
In the accounts of the Equitable, "among the disbursements charged to legal expenses appear annual retainers of $20,000 paid Chauncey M. Depew [United States Senator from New York] and $5000 (for one year—1900—$7500) to David B. Hill. Mr. Depew testifies … that his services consisted of advising the late Mr. Hyde in regard to matters of investment, settlement of controversies and troublesome questions of various sorts. … During this time Mr. Depew was a director and member of the Executive Committee. The testimony as to the services is very general, and it does not appear," says the committee, "that outside of those which the society was fairly entitled to receive from him as a director, the services were such as to warrant the payments made. … The Equitable contributed to the Republican National Committee $50,000 in 1904; undoubtedly contributions were made in prior national campaigns, but their amount has not been stated. For many years the society has made an annual contribution of $10,000 to the Republican State Committee through Senator Platt." Senator Platt was a collector, also, of similar contributions from the Mutual Life, and that company gave $40,000 to the Republican National Committee in 1904, as well as smaller sums in previous years.
Of the management in these great companies of the enormous surplus of profit, which even their inordinate self-appropriations left in their keeping, no clear account could be given here. It is set forth in the Committee’s report by examples of investments, in stocks, bonds, and real property, so conducted, through subsidiary organizations, etc., as to yield a personal profit to the skilful financiers within the life insurance circle. The details which make the matter plain cannot be abridged and require more space than can be afforded in this place.
From the investigation of the life insurance companies the Committee and its counsel passed to the State Department which was instituted to scrutinize and supervise these organizations, for the detection and prevention of such abuses in their management as had now come to light. Their findings in this direction were stated partly as follows:
"It would seem that the Superintendent [of Insurance] has had ample power, and has been charged with the correlative duty, to inquire into and to ascertain the transactions of insurance companies, to the end that abuses may be exposed and correct administration assured. The scheme by which the superintendent may require detailed written statements duly verified, as to any matter of corporate business and may supplement these statements by an examination of the company’s books and of the officers and agents under oath, would appear well calculated to prevent the secret growth of improper practices. Not only through the visitorial powers of the superintendent were a wholesale publicity and the consequent enforcement of the law to be assured, but the superintendent was also charged with the duty of recommending to the Legislature annually such amendments to the law as in his judgment were needed to correct evils found to be without the purview of existing statutes.
"But the supervision by the department has not proved a sufficient protection against extravagance and maladministration. Annual statements from the corporations have been received, filed and published, but in many particulars without sufficient detail to exhibit the real efficiency of honesty of the management. Nor has there been suitable effort upon the facts actually reported to detect and expose evasions of departmental requirements and the resort to artifice and double dealing in order to avoid a true disclosure of the companies’ affairs. For the most part a critical examination of the reports so made seems to have been neglected, and the verification of the annual statements has been left to examinations conducted at irregular intervals. No rule seems to have been adopted with reference to the frequency of examinations. Thus the Security Mutual Insurance Company has been examined four times since its reincorporation in 1898, at its request and apparently with no other object than to enable it to use the department’s certificate in support of its annual statement, while the Provident Savings Life Assurance Society has been examined only once in the past ten years (1897) and it would seem that this was the only examination in its history. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has also been examined only once during ten years, that is, in 1900. The advisability of frequent examinations is sufficiently illustrated by the case of the Washington Life Insurance Company, where it appeared on the examination in 1904 that during the interval of four years since the prior examination it had, in at least two annual statements, deceived the department by glaringly false returns of its existing liabilities, and that instead of having an alleged surplus of considerable amount its capital was seriously impaired. In connection with this company it may be noted that a more careful scrutiny of the reports to the department of lapsed and restored policies would have led at an earlier date to the investigation which appears finally to have been induced by outside criticism."
As to remedial legislation, the main recommendations of the Committee were in substance these:
(1) Investments in stocks of banks and trust companies, in the common stock of any corporation, in syndicate participations, and in speculative bonds, to be forbidden.
(2) No political contributions or lobby expenditures to be permitted.
(3) Full publicity regarding salaries and expenses.
(4) New business of the "big three" companies restricted to $150,000,000 a year each, and the business of other companies limited.
{329}
(5) Agents’ commissions to be based on the amount of the policy and not on the amount of the premium.
(6) Only four kinds of standard policies to be permitted—term, straight life, limited payment and endowment.
(7) Investment policies to be discouraged and deferred dividends forbidden.
(8) All dividends on participating policies to be apportioned annually.
(9) No company to be permitted to sell both participating and non-participating policies.
(10) The present trustees of mutual companies to be removed. New ones to be elected under a system whereby the policy-holders really elect.
The Committee presented the elaborate report of its investigation to the Legislature on the 22d of February, 1906, and its recommendations were embodied for the most part in an enactment, the drafting of which, to a large extent, was the careful work of Mr. Hughes, the master mind of the whole proceeding of investigation.
The statements made above are drawn entirely from the Committee’s Report, as published in Volume 10 of the printed testimony and report.
_Assembly Document Number 41, State of New York, 1906._
"INTELLECTUALS."
See (in this Volume) SOCIALISM: FRANCE: A. D. 1909.
INTELLIGENZIA, The.
See (in this Volume) RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.
INTEMPERANCE.
See (in this Volume ) ALCOHOL PROBLEM.
INTERFEROMETER, Professor Michelson’s.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
See (in this Volume) EUROPE.
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST, AND ARBITRATION, INTERNATIONAL.
INTERNATIONAL BARBARISM.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR.
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS: Resolution of the Third International Conference of American Republics.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN REPUBLICS, Second and Third.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ARTS AND SCIENCES.
See (in this Volume) ST. LOUIS. A. D. 1904.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ALCOHOLISM.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM: INTERNATIONAL.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES, of Science.
See (in this Volume) SCIENCE AND INVENTION.
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN.
See (in this Volume) WOMEN.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, Central American.
See (in this Volume) CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1907.
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION, United States and Canada.
See (in this Volume) FOOD FISHES.
INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CONGRESS.
See (in this Volume) GEOGRAPHIC CONGRESS.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY: Profit-sharing with Employees.
See (in this Volume) LABOR REMUNERATION: PROFIT-SHARING.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE.
See (in this Volume) AGRICULTURE.
INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES, Educational.
See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGES.
INTERNATIONAL LAW: Convention providing for a Commission of Jurists to draft a Code for Regulation of Relations between American Nations.
See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS: THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE COMPANY, Formation of the.
See (in this Volume) COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL (INTERNATIONAL).
INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONGRESSES.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.
INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY CONGRESS.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1905.
INTERNATIONAL RIGHT, The Institute of.
See (in this Volume) NOBEL PRIZES.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF PEACE.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1909.
INTERNATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ALLIANCE.
See (in this Volume) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
INTERNATIONALISM, SUPERSEDING NATIONALISM.
See (in this Volume) WORLD MOVEMENTS: FICHTE’S PROPHECY.
INTEROCEANIC CANAL.
See (in this Volume) PANAMA CANAL.
INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION, The.
See (in this Volume) WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904-1909.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, and Commission.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES; also, COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.
On the passage, in 1906, of the Hepburn Act, amendatory of the Interstate Commerce Law, the Commission was reconstructed by fresh appointments, in making which the President retained Messrs. Knapp, of New York, Prouty, of Vermont, Clements, of Georgia, and Cockrell, of Missouri. His new appointees were Franklin K. Lane, of California, Edgar Erastus Clark, of Iowa, and James S. Harlan, of Illinois.
INTOXICANTS, PROBLEMS OF THE.
See (in this Volume) ALCOHOL PROBLEM, AND OPIUM PROBLEM.
INTRANSIGENTES.
See (in this Volume) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1907.
INVENTORY OF CHURCH PROPERTY, THE FRENCH.
See (in this Volume) FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.
{330}
----------IRELAND: Start--------
IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1903. The Working of the successive Land Laws. The Act of 1903. Text of its main provisions.
The French writer, L. Paul-Dubois, whose work, _L’Irlande Contemporaire_, published in 1907, has appeared since in an English translation, seems to have made a very careful and intelligent study of the working of the successive land-laws for Ireland, intended to be beneficial to the tenants, which began with that of Gladstone in 1870.
See in Volumes III and VI IRELAND.
Mr. Gladstone, himself, in the Act of 1881, endeavored to remedy the defects of the Act of 1870; but M. Paul-Dubois finds that, while the later Act "brought and continues to bring immense good to the country," yet "the system established by it is, as a matter of fact, no longer bearable for any one,"—for the reason that "the first great characteristic of the Gladstonian legislation is duality of ownership." It is, as he explains, an unhealthy system, unsound both economically and socially,—this dual ownership, which turns the landlord and tenant into co-proprietors of the soil. It paralyses agriculture by preventing the investment of capital on either side, and by destroying all interest of either landlord or tenant in the good farming of the land. The landlord feels himself no longer called upon to do anything for his property, and has no care left but that of collecting his rents. The tenant, on the other hand, refrains from making any improvement or advances that might cause his rent to be raised at the next quindecennial revision; the land is thus starved of both labor and capital. We may add, also, that the new regime gives rise to an infinity of ruinous lawsuits between the co-owners. … For a quarter of a century there has been only one class of men whose affairs have prospered, namely, the solicitors. Their number has increased by 30 per cent." In his view of the results, M. Paul-Dubois is sympathetic with both landlords and tenants. But in his judgment the tenants were not fairly dealt with under the Gladstonian laws by the Land Commission or by the courts. The courts, especially, in interpreting the Act of 1881, which left "fair rent" undefined, established rulings which practically nullified the intentions of the law, until, as this writer expresses it, "the Act of 1896 brought the Irish judges to reason."
Eleven years before that time, however, a little experiment was begun on the line of a true solution of the Irish land question, namely, toward the buying of the soil of the island from its landlords and making its cultivators the owners of it. This was in the Ashbourne Land Purchase Act of 1885, which provided a fund of £5,000,000 for advances to be made to tenant purchasers, with provision for the repayment of the loan in forty-nine annuities. In 1889 this fund was increased to £10,000,000. By 1891 the fund had been exhausted, and "25,367 tenants had been turned into owners of their farms. Its success even alarmed some of the landlords, who began to fear that the farmers would combine and force them to sell their land. However this may be," says the French writer, "in 1891 the Conservative Government passed a new Act which, under the pretence of regulating the progress of the operation, complicated it to such an extent that the machine almost stopped working. In 1896, by another Act, the existing evils were slightly remedied, but only to an insufficient extent. … Finally, in 1903, it was found that under the new system established in 1891 and 1896, only 38,251 tenants had been turned into proprietors; and at that same date the total number of peasant owners created from first to last had reached no higher figure than 73,917. As Land Purchase was progressing more and more slowly, it was felt that some new impulse must be given to the machine. This was the aim of the great Land Act of 1903."
_L. Paul-Dubois, Contemporary Ireland, part 2, chapters 1-2 (Maunsel & Co., Dublin, 1908)._
"The Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903 was in every respect epoch-making. It was preceded by, and founded upon, the report of a conference held between the representatives of landlord and tenant in Dublin. The Landlords’ Convention, the official representative of the landlord party, held aloof and refused to join in the conference. Typical landlords, such as the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Barrymore, and Colonel Saunderson, refused to serve, ridiculing the project as absurd and quixotic. Lord Dunraven led a saner section of landlords, with the result that, after a session of five days, the conference agreed to a report, upon which the government acted. The official landlords, seeing the reasonableness of the findings and recognizing their own folly, succumbed at once, and fell in with the general tendency for settlement. Substantially, the Act of 1903 accepted the principle of universal sale of the landlord’s interest to the occupier. It ignored legal compulsion. But it accepted what was finely called the principle of compulsion by inducement. It placed the sum of £100,000,000 ($500,000,000) at the disposal of landlord and tenant for the purposes of the act. It went further,—for it enacted that out of a fund called the Land Purchase Aid Fund each landlord who sold should receive a bonus (Latin for gift) of 12 per cent. on the purchase money. It appointed a new tribunal to administer the Act. And to this tribunal were given powers of re-settling congested districts by the purchase of grass lands, the enlargement of uneconomic holdings, and the restoration of certain evicted tenants where possible."
_Thomas W. Russell, M. P., The Workings of the Irish Land Law (American Review of Reviews, November, 1905)._
The following are among the important provisions of the Land Act of 1903:
"1. (4) Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary contained in the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, an advance may be sanctioned under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts not exceeding the sum of seven thousand pounds to one purchaser where, in the opinion of the Land Commission, it is expedient to make any such advance for the purpose of carrying out the sale of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply. …
{331}
"2. (1) In the case of the sale of an estate advances under the Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels thereof by the following persons:
(_a_) A person being the tenant of a holding on the estate;
(_b_) A person being the son of a tenant of a holding on the estate;
(_c_) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding five pounds in rateable value, situate in the neighbourhood of the estate; and
(_d_) A person who within twenty-five years before the passing of this Act was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, and who is not at the date of the purchase the tenant or proprietor of that holding. Provided that in the case of the death of a person to whom an advance under this paragraph might otherwise have been made, the advance may be made, to a person nominated by the Land Commission as the personal representative of the deceased person.
"(2) Advances under this section shall not, together with the amount (if any) of any previous advance under the Land Purchase Acts then unrepaid by the purchaser, exceed one thousand pounds:
"Provided that the limitation in this subsection may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be exceeded where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
"(3) The Land Purchase Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the sale of a parcel of land in pursuance of this section, in like manner as if the same was a holding, and the purchaser was the tenant thereof at the time of his making the purchase, and the expression "holding" in those Acts shall include a parcel of land in respect of the purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of this section. …
"6. (4) In the case of a congested estate as defined by this section, if the Land Commission, with the consent of the owner, certify to the Lord Lieutenant that the purchase and resale of the estate are desirable in view of the wants and circumstances of the tenants thereon, then the Land Commission may purchase the estate for a price to be agreed upon, and in such case the condition in this section as to resale without prospect of loss may be relaxed to such extent as the Lord Lieutenant may determine.
"(5) The expression "congested estate" means an estate not less than half of the area of which consists of holdings not exceeding five pounds in rateable value, or of mountain or bog land, or not less than a quarter of the area of which is held in rundale or intermixed plots. …
"8. The Land Commission may purchase any untenanted land which they consider necessary for the purchase of facilitating the resale, or redistribution, of estates purchased, or proposed to be purchased, by them, and the foregoing provisions of this Act, with respect to advances for the purchase of parcels of land comprised in estates, shall apply in the case of the sale by the Commission of any parcel of such untenanted land.
"9. (1) There shall not be at any time vested in the Land Commission lands exceeding in the aggregate, according to the estimate of the Commission, as approved by the Treasury, the capital value of five million pounds in respect of which undertakings to purchase have not been received by the Commission. …
"12. (1) The Land Commission may take such steps and execute, or cause to be executed, such works as may appear expedient for the benefit or improvement of estates, or untenanted land, purchased or proposed to be purchased under this Act, or for the use or enjoyment thereof or generally for the purposes of this Act. …
"19. Where an estate is purchased by the Land Commission and tenants on the estate to the extent of three-fourths in number and rateable value have agreed to purchase their holdings, the Estates Commissioners may, if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they think it expedient, order that the remaining tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly, where the tenant could have obtained an advance of the entire purchase money, and the Land Commission have offered in the prescribed manner to make the advance."
IRELAND: A. D. 1893-1907. The Gaelic League.
"At the eve of the great famine, the mass of the people, outside the large towns, still spoke Irish; to-day partly owing to emigration, Irish is only spoken by 600,000 persons, out of four and a half millions, and that concurrently with English. Twenty thousand persons speak Irish only; these are mainly of the West. … An glicisation had begun its work, when the old language had been lost. Therefore, must not the Irish renaissance begin with the readoption of that language? So thought a small and elite group of Irish patriots, men of talent and enthusiasm, imbued with the national gospel preached by Thomas Davis forty years earlier—a gospel which Ireland had to some extent forgotten amidst the sufferings of the Great Famine, Fenianism and the Land Wars. Prominent in this group was the descendant of an old Protestant family of Roscommon, a Celtic scholar and folklorist, a poet of merit in English, a poet in Irish also, so say the connoisseurs, Dr. Douglas Hyde. He had the genius for propaganda, and when the country was ripe for it, gave body to his ideas by founding the Gaelic League, with the aid of his early friends, in 1893. The Gaelic League—though to limit the Irish renaissance by placing it under this title would be to limit its actual scope—may be said to be a faithful representative of the general ideas underlying the new Irish movement. It has declared its objects to be, the preservation of Irish as the national language, the study of ancient Irish literature, and the cultivation of a modern literature in the Irish language. But we must be careful not to judge it by its name. The Gaelic League is not a society of scholars, and leaves to others all that concerns literature and philology, pure and simple. It is occupied with propaganda, the application of its doctrine of a national renaissance on the basis of a national language. It intends to confer anew upon the country a psychological education, and, by means of the national language, by the revival of national art and literature, and the reconstitution of a national social system, to regenerate its soul from within and teach Ireland how she may again be a nation. … Though still growing, it has already in Ireland 964 branches, local and popular centres of activity, whose work it is to spread the national idea and the national language by every means, and to make them active factors in the every-day life of the family and social circle. Their primary duty is to organise Irish language classes for the benefit of their members. {332} These classes are practical above all in their scope, and are conducted sometimes by paid teachers and sometimes by generous volunteers whose work is almost always good. … Such a teacher in the country manages, on his rounds, to hold a dozen classes or so regularly every week. There are special classes for workmen, for students, for ladies; special classes for beginners, for veterans, Irish history classes, singing and even dancing classes, where the old national airs are taught and the national reel and jig. … In the summer, during holiday time, the enthusiasts of Irish speech come together in the western villages for the _Sgoil Saoire_ (Summer school). There their teachers are the old peasants, from whom they learn not only the correct accent, the music of the language, but the spirit and tradition of ancient Irish culture, of which these peasants, who, from generation to generation, have gathered up the songs and legends of former times, are the most faithful guardians. In the summer also the _Seilge_ are organised, that is to say, excursions to places of historical interest, with national sports and recreations. A _seilg_ in Galway in 1901 was attended by no less than 2,000 pilgrims. In the winter evenings each branch holds reunions from time to time, lectures (_seanchus_), followed by discussions on Irish subjects, concerts (_sgoruidheacht_), with choirs, Irish dances and songs, and _ceilidhe_, informal meetings on the lines of ancient village gatherings, where serious conversation—in Irish—alternates with music or a ‘recital,’ that is to say, a story or a piece of news, told, according to popular custom, by the author or a raconteur. Every year the Gaelic and National Festival, that of St. Patrick, is celebrated throughout Ireland, but notably in Dublin. … A start—the first and greatest difficulty—has been made, and now the League is a power in Ireland. It sells annually 20,000 Gaelic books and pamphlets, in which are included _editiones principes_ of the poets of the eighteenth century, and new Irish publications, tales, and novels. Its financial resources are moderate. They represent, however, the spontaneous obol of the poor; and a large part of the annual subscription to the Language Fund, during St. Patrick’s week, is made up of pence and of half-pence. From the start the League has had the good sense officially to declare that it was both necessary and desirable that it should stand apart from all political and religious struggles; such has been its line of conduct, and now within it are found representatives of every party, from the strongest Orangemen to the fiercest separatists."
_L. Paul-Dubois, Contemporary Ireland,