WORLD’S PEACE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1002, 8 June 1911, Page 4

WORLD’S PEACE.

HOW KING EDWARD INTERVENED.

(By W. T. Stead)

The air is lull of talk about international arbitration, the altitude of Germany, the proposals of America, the response of Sir E. Grey and Mr Balfour. It is all strangely familiar to me. I seem to be living over again the summer days I spent at The Hague in 1907, when just the same problems were discussed by just the same Powers. Let us hope not with just the same results. While pondering over the reminiscences of these old days it occurred to me that the Marquis de Several, that great Ambassador of a small State, as Baron d’Estournelles de Constant aptly described him at the Hague, has now a position of greater independence and less responsibility than when he was Minister for Portugal in London, and that it be possible for him to throw a little light upon the curious volte face of the two Empires at the Conference of 1907. I found the Marquis at the Ritz, and we were soon deep in the discussion of the memories of those stirring days.

“ I would not care to talk about it,” said the Marquis de Soveral, “ were it not that I feel it only just to the memory of King Edward that the public should be aware of the decisive part he played in 1907. It is not generally known that Great Britain owes it to her late Sovereign, and to him alone, that Sir Edward Grey is now in a position to make that response to the American overtures which has been so warmly supported by public opinion.

“ To understand the position it is necessary to go back to the meeting of the Inter-Pailiamentary Conference in London in 1906. I attended that conference and was immensely impressed by the plea which it made in favour of universal obligatory international arbitration. When I was sent to The Hague to represent my country I expected to find that the proposals of the Inter-Parliament-ary Union would be pressed upou the Conference by one or more of the great Powers. The British people were, I knew, enthusiastic for arbitration. Sir H. CampbellBannerman had identified himself with the Conference, and it was natural to expect that the British delegates would have stood sponsors for the scheme.

“ But in the early days of the Conference the British delegates amazed us all by offering a stolid opposition to every scheme of universal arbitration. Their note was one of cynical despair. The Conference, in the eyes of some of them at least, was a sorry farce ; so, plucking up my courage with both my hands, I, in the name of little Portugal, introduced the proposal of the Inlet-Parliamentary Union into the Conference.”

“The Americans, I think, had moved in the same direction before you acted.” ‘ ‘ The American proposal was for a general treaty of obligatory arbitration, covering all dispute, excepting those affecting honours vital interests, and the independence of the State, or the interests 01 third Powers. To this Brazil proposed to add a fifth exception, relating to questions affecting the relations of the State or their international laws. There was besides these four loopholes an open door of escape from the obligation to arbitrate in the shape of the condition that each appeal to arbitration must be sanctioned by the American Senate. The Portuguese proposal declared that the Powers agreed to forswear the use of any of the four loopholes in certain specified cases, such as the interpretation and application of sixteen separate classes of convention, pecuniary claims, and the question ot debts.” “ What happened ?”

‘ ‘ Baron Marschall von Bieberstein astonished everyone by declaring in a memorable speech that resounded through the world that eight years which had elapsed since the first conference had led Germany to abandon her objection to obligatory arbitration. He declared himself without reserve iu favour of obligatory arbitration, and severely criticised the American proposal because it was not obligatory enough. There were too many loopholes. One’s delight at this resounding declaration was all the greater because the natural deduction was that Germany would naturally support the Portuguese proposition which stopped the loopholes in about twenty different subjects.”

“ What was the attitude of the British delegates?” “Stolid unsympathetic opposition,” replied the Marquis de Soveral. “ I was in despair. I have lived so long in England that I have learned to love it as a second fatherland, and I realised as no one in London seemed able to do, the ghastly consequences that would follow it Germany were allowed to wrest the leadership of the world in the cause of peace from the hands of England. It seemed to me that something must be done, and that at once, to pull things straight. There was only one man who could save the situation, and that man was King Edward. I decided to rush over to London and see the King.” “And what happened ?” “The King received me at once. In a few brief sentences I set forth the situation. King Edward realised the gravity ot the position at once. 'The instructions ot our delegates/ he said, ‘must be changed. 1 He gave me brief but practical directions, on which I

was only too glad to act. I cannot go into details here. It is sufficient to say that the instructions were changed, and that the British delegates, much to the chagrin of some of them, were instructed to support what they had hitherto opposed. I willingly handed over the conduct of the Portuguese proposition to the hands of Sir Edward Fry. The honour of England was saved. Britain and America were once more brought into harmony, and the leadership in the cause of obligatory arbitration was restored to the Englishspeaking world solely by the statesmanlike intervention of King Edward.”

“How did Germany take this sudden change of front ?”

“By a change of front quite as startling. Within a week after Baron Marschall’s manifesto in favour of obligatory arbitration my colleague, M. de Kriege, at the first meeting of the committee appointed to consider the Portuguese proposition, declared categorically that ‘the German delegation cannot give its support to any project tending to establish obligatory and universal arbitration for all questions of a juridical nature or relating to the interpretation of treatises.’ To that attitude the German delegates adhered to the end.”

“Then do you think Germany will always be opposed to obligatory arbitration ?” “Who knows ? Those who change front once can change front again. And, in justice to Baron Marschall, he always maintained that, while he was unalterably opposed to a world-wide treaty, on the ground that distinctions must be made between the Powers that are at different stages of evolution, he always asserted that Germany was ready to make separate treaties of obligatory arbitration with any Powers which she recognised as on her own level on subjects which they considered ripe for such treatment.”

So far the Marquis de Soveral. From his most timely and interesting retrospect of torgotton history, it is evident that it would be a mistake to regard the attitude of any Power as fixed and immutable. Germany may yet take the lead in the limited but cast-iron system of obligatory arbitration as the jealousy of the American Senate may prove an insuperable obstacle in the way of any system of automatic obligatory international arbitration. Above all, the Marquis’ reminiscences show what a debt of gratitude we owe to our late King, but tor whom the tchenovniks of the Foreign Office would have stultified the noblest aspirations of the British people.