The Progress of the World. 



553 



sir Edward Grey's enlouragc\ that war witli Germany 

 is inevitable. It was noteworthy that while Sir Edward 

 Grey's chilly speech was cheered by the Opposition, 

 Mr. Bonar Law's references to Germany were received 

 by his party in stony silence, while the Liberals 

 cheered with might and main. The contribution 

 made by Lord Lansdowne was even more important. 

 Lord Lan.sdowne was the original author of the 

 I'rench entatU, which Sir Francis Bertie and Sir 

 lidward Grey have now converted into all but a 

 hard and fast alliance, with its sharp edge directed 

 against (lerinany. Sir Edward Grey excuses himself 

 on the ground that he is but carrying on the policy 

 of his predecessor. Hence the importance of Lord 

 Lansdowne's declaration that when he made the entente 

 with France it was with the hope that it would be 

 followed by an entente with Germany. Speaking of 

 the Ministry in 1904, he said: — 



If ihe GovtrnnKnt at ihat time had any one .aspiration that 

 they particularly cheri^-hed it w.xs that this .Agreement wiili 

 France shoukl be the (ireciir.sor of other ayreenieiits with oilier 

 Powers . . . The \vh. le policy of the late Government was 

 quite inconsistent with the idea of comin<; to an ayreemcm with 

 France which wouhl exclude the possibility of agreement with 

 other Powers or which should divide the ICuropeaii Powers into 

 two hostile canjps. 



But that is precisely what has been accomplished 

 by Sir ICdward Cirey under the mask of loyally carry- 

 ing out Lord I.ari.^downe's policy. 



In the House of Lords Lord 

 Courtney in an admirable speech 

 arraigned the policy of Sir Edward 

 Grey in terms and on grounds 

 that recalled the days of Mr. Gladstone. Lord 

 Illorley in reply took little trouble to disguise his 

 sympathy with much that Lord Courtney had said. 

 He praised Mr. Bonar Law's speech, eulogised Lord 

 Salisbury's foreign policy, and after a chilly word of 

 recognition of the " lucidity " of Sir Edward Grey's 

 speech the previous night, practically admitted that 

 .Mr. Lloyd George should not have made his famous 

 speech. That, at least, is the only meaning to be 

 attached to these words : — 



!l fni(;ht be thought that it would have been better if the 

 (iiiveinnienl'sdeclat.ition, which was made to the bankers at 

 the .Mansion llciHe, had been made through the ordinary diplo- 

 matic channc-ls, but the I'rim(T .Minister, the Korii.;,'n .Secretary, 

 anil the Chancellor of the Kxclie()U(r were of aimther opinion, 

 and the speech was made. 



This, however, was nothing to Lord Morley's very 

 significant allusion to the cause of all Sir Edward 

 (Jrey's blunders. Lord Morley said : — 



I do not say lhat there is no real conflfcl of interest iKlwten 

 England and Germany. Out this I do say : That conflict is not 

 a conflict lhat could possibly be averted or suppressed or con- 

 ducted 10 a hopeful issue cither by war or the shock of battle, 

 or by any iliplniiiihy 'hirlm^ from Jixnl tiiilifiil/iies ami firt- 



Lord Morley's 

 Admissions. 



possfssions, wliethcr tliosc nnlipalliies and prep(isses>ioiis are in 

 tlie mind 0/ ike Governmenl or in llu- minds of its a!;,-nls and 

 informants at/road. 



Of which let Sir Francis Bertie, Sir F. Cartwright, 



and the smaller fry of Germanophobes who poison the 



atmosphere of the Foreign Office with their "fixed 



antipathies and prepossessions " take due note. 



Sir Edward Grey referred very 



The Betrayal brieliy to the criticisms directed 

 of the . 



Public Law of Europe, aganist his policy in Tripoli by 



Mr. Mason and other Members. 



For all that he had to say he might as well Jiave held 



his tongue, for he made no answer whatever to the 



real charges which damn his policy. The following 



series of pointed questions addressed to ?.Ir. Asquith 



by a public meeting of the South London Ethical 



Society remain to this day without answer : — 



1. Italy has had recourse to force without having appealed to 

 the oilier Powers to settle her dispute with the Sublime Porte 

 by friendly mediation. This being a direct breach of the Sth 

 .\rticle of the Treaty of Paris, we want to know whether your 

 Government h.is protested against this violation of the public 

 law of Kurope, and if not, why not? 



2. The ISritish Government in the Hague Conventions of 

 1899 and 1907 recognised that it was our duty to call the 

 attention of any Powers in dispute to the existence of the 

 Hague Tribunal, and to recommend them to take advantage of 

 the provisions of the H.igue Convention. Has your Govern 

 nient performeil this duty, and if not, why not? 



3. The British Government, in concert with all ihe Govern- 

 ments of the world, drew up rules of civilised war at the Hague 

 in 1S99 and 1907. These rules have been violated by the 

 Italians in Tripoli by the massacring of unarmed men, sur- 

 rirndcred prisoners, women and chihlren. Has your (iovern- 

 ment taken any steps to uphold the authority of the Hague 

 Code of civilised war, and if not, why not ? 



"4. JJritish Governments in 1S71 and 1878 declared it to be 

 a fixed principle of British policy lhat any changes ni.ade if 

 the s/alns quo of the Ottoman Empire had no valiility wilh- 

 out the consent of all the .Signatories of the Treaty of Paris. 

 Has your Government made the same intimation to Italy, and 

 if not, wliv have you abandoned the traditional policy of Great 

 Britain and ignored the treaties upon which the public law of 

 Europe is based ? 



The fact is that on this Tripolitan question the 

 Government is hopelessly in the wrong. It has 

 betrayed the public law of Europe, and by its breach 

 of trust has let loose a war which before it ends may 

 very ])Ossibly lead to the destruction of the Italian 

 kingdom. 



The Italians, who anticipated that 

 llu-y had but to clutch and to 

 steal, are painfully disillusioned. 

 Two months have passed and 

 they are' no nearer the conquest of Tripoli than they 

 were when the war began. So far as the range of 

 the guns of their lieet carry — say a fringe of three 

 miles along a coastline 900 miles long — so long as 

 the ships are lying inshore, so much of Tripoli they 

 have taken. But the rest of the country, which is 



The 

 Failure of Italy 



and its 

 Consequences. 



