Moral Law in International Relations 343 



moral law? If we follow the inevitable conse- 

 quences of the Treaty of Frankfort, we find the 

 answer to this question. We can see how the 

 injustice committed upon France led to the forma- 

 tion of the Revanche party, how it led to the 

 Franco-Russian Alliance, to forty-four years of 

 insane armament competition on the continent of 

 Europe, and how it led finally to the breakdown of 

 civilization in August, 1914. In the face of such 

 an inevitable chain of retribution it is clear that 

 in 1 87 1 there was no conflict between the moral 

 law and the highest interest of the German people, 

 but that these were identical. 



Let us take another example. In 1878 Lord 

 Beaconsfield went to the Congress of Berlin and 

 brought back what he called "peace with honour. " 

 At this Congress Lord Beaconsfield forced the 

 diplomats to tear up the Treaty of San Stefano, 

 which had regulated the boundaries of the Balkan 

 States in accordance with the principle of nation- 

 ality, and to thrust the Balkan peoples back under 

 the yoke of Turkey. Certainly Lord Beacons- 

 field knew he was not acting in accordance with 

 the Golden Rule. He would not have wished 

 any nation to do unto England what he did unto 

 the Balkan peoples, but he considered that the 

 interests of England demanded that there should 

 be a strong Turkey holding the Dardanelles and 

 preventing Russia from getting access to warm 

 water and menacing the route to India. In other 

 words, he considered that the highest interests of 



