tainty, due to the presence therein of aggression. However, a new element appears. This is "benevolent neutrality," which is to be maintained by the party at peace, when the other has become entangled in a difficulty with one or more powers "in which it can not be said to be the aggressor." In addition, the party at peace was to "use its utmost endeavor for the localization of the conflict." While it might be unfair to assume that Germany, in 1912, had in contemplation the situation of August, 1914, it is not unfair to remark that the language contained in this article applied, without straining, to such a state of affairs. Germany would have been free; Great Britain would have been tied and bound to observe "a benevolent neutrality" while Serbia was thrown to the dogs. The fourth article, like all the other articles, is fair upon its face, but unfair in its application. Nothing could seem fairer than that neither nation should be required to observe neutrality if it had entangling alliances requiring other action. Germany had such treaties; Great Britain did not, so that Germany would be free while Great Britain would be bound, if the treaty was not to be "a scrap of paper.” The Triple Alliance was a treaty; the Entente was not an obligation. In the same way, article five, while outwardly fair, is unequal in its application inasmuch as Germany already had treaties of a kind which Great Britain would be forbidden by that article to make, thus perpetuating an inequality between the two. And article six, binding each of the contracting parties to prevent differences between them and other powers, was in the general, as well as in the special, interests of Germany and Great Britain.

Sir Edward Grey very properly refused the proposed formula, inasmuch as his duty was to preserve, not to betray British interests. Pressed by Count Metternich for a counter-proposal, he submitted, on March 14, 1912, and with the approval of his colleagues of the Cabinet, the following:

England will make no unprovoked attack upon Germany, and pursue no aggressive policy toward her.

Aggression upon Germany is not the subject, and forms no part of any treaty, understanding, or combination to which England is now a party, nor will she become a party to anything that has such an object.2

This formula appeared inadequate to the Count, who suggested the following alternative additional clauses:

2 The New York Times, June 2, 1918, Sec. 5, p. 4.

England will therefore observe at least a benevolent neutrality should war be forced upon Germany; or

England will therefore, as a matter of course, remain neutral if a war is forced upon Germany.3

Sir Edward's proposal, as well as Count Metternich's counterproposal, were based upon acceptance of British views in the matter of the naval program.

Sir Edward naturally disapproved of the counter-proposal, explaining that "if Germany desired to crush France, England might not be able to sit still, though, if France were aggressive or attacked Germany, no support would be given by his Majesty's Government or approved by England." The real object of the German proposal appears to have been as he said, "to obtain the neutrality of England in all eventualities, since, should a war break out, Germany would certainly contend that it had been forced upon her, and would claim that England should remain neutral." 5 The facts are unfortunately with Sir Edward.

Negotiations, however, did not drop, and eventually Sir Edward proposed as a further formula that "the two powers being mutually desirous of securing peace and friendship between them, England declares that she will neither make nor join in any unprovoked attack upon Germany." To this he added the clause denying aggression on the part of Great Britain. In submitting this draft, Sir Edward explained that the use of the word "neutrality" might create a wrong impression, and that it would better therefore be avoided, and that, in any event, the substance of the agreement was more accurately expressed by the words "will neither make nor join in any unprovoked attack."

The British proposal was unsatisfactory to the Imperial German Chancellor, who stated that the increase of the German navy could only be halted by "an agreement guaranteeing neutrality"; as Count Metternich explained, "of a far-reaching character and leaving no doubt as to any interpretation."7

The up-shot of the whole matter is thus stated by Sir Edward Grey:

A few days afterward Count Metternich communicated to Sir Edward Grey the substance of a letter from the Chancellor, in which the latter said that, as 3 The New York Times, June 2, 1918, Sec. 5, p. 4. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

4 Ibid. 7 Ibid.

the formula suggested by his Majesty's Government was from the German point of view insufficient, and as his Majesty's Government could not agree to the larger formula for which he had asked, the Novelle [the bill then pending for the increase of the German navy] must proceed on the lines on which it had been presented to the Federal Council.8

Thus "the hope of a mutual reduction," to use Sir Edward Grey's language, "in the expenditure on armaments of the two countries,” failed.

Lord Haldane's mission proved abortive, and negotiations between the two governments following the visit were likewise abortive, but they are worth recounting as showing that in 1912 Great Britain wished to avoid war, and that Germany wished to bind England to neutrality if war should break out.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

8 The New York Times, June 2, 1918, Sec. 5, p. 4.

CHRONICLE OF INTERNATIONAL EVENTS

WITH REFERENCES

Abbreviations: Ann. sc. pol., Annales des sciences politiques, Paris; Arch. dipl., Archives Diplomatiques, Paris; B., boletín, bulletin, bolletino; P. A. U., bulletin of the Pan American Union, Washington; Cd., Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers; Clunet, J. de Dr. Int. Privé, Paris; Current History—Current History-A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times; Doc. dipl., France, Documents diplomatiques; B. Rel. Ext., Boletín de Relaciones Exteriores; Dr., droit, diritto, derecho; D. O., Diario Oficial; For. rel., Foreign Relations of the United States; Ga., gazette, gaceta, gazzetta; Int., international, internacional, internazionale; J., journal; J. O., Journal Officiel, Paris; L., Law; M., Magazine; Mém. dipl., Mémorial diplomatique, Paris; Monit., Belgium, Moniteur belge; Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, Leipzig; Official Bulletin, Official Bulletin of the United States; Q., Quarterly; Q. dip., Questions diplomatiques et coloniales; R., review, revista, revue, rivista; R. pol. et pairl., Revue Politique et Parlementaire; Reichs G., Reichs-Gesetzblatt, Berlin; Staats., Staatsblad, Netherlands; State Papers, British and Foreign State Papers, London; Stat. at L., United States Statutes at Large; Times, The Times (London).

December, 1917.

11 ITALY GREAT BRITAIN. Convention signed relative to military service of nationals of one country in the territory of the other. French text: Clunet, 45:873.

January, 1918.

3, 14 FRANCE-UNITED STATES. By an exchange of notes France effected with the United States an agreement relative to penal military jurisdiction and friendly occupation during the war. This agreement is identic with agreements made with Great Britain, December 15, 1915; Belgium, January 29, 1916; Serbia, December 1, 1916; Portugal, October 15, 1917. Texts: Clunet, 45:867.

April, 1918.

23 FRANCE. Announced that France would denounce most-favored nation clauses in treaties. Clunet, 45:968.

26 FRANCE GERMANY. Agreement relative to prisoners of war signed at Berne. French text: Clunet, 45:846.

28 PORTUGAL. Señor Sidomio Paes elected President of Portugal. London Times (wk. ed.), May 3, 1918.

May, 1918.

4 LITHUANIA-GERMANY. German decree issued recognizing independence of Lithuania. London Times (wk. ed.), May 17, 1918.

10 FRANCE-TURKEY. Announced that an accord had been signed relative to repatriation of civilians of the two countries. Clunet, 45:972.

12 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC-UNITED STATES. The American Ambassador at Buenos Aires addressed note to the Argentine Foreign Office calling attention to the necessity for a complete agreement as to the use to which the Hamburg-South American Bahia-Blanco was to be put, and whether it was to trade with enemy countries. Clunet, 45:928.

14 GREAT BRITAIN. Announcement that Great Britain would denounce commercial treaties with most favored-nation clauses. London Times (wk. ed.), May 17, 1918.

15 COURTNEY OF PENWITH. Death of Lord Courtney of Penwith. 21 JAPAN-CHINA-UNITED STATES. Statement as to American position relative to Chino-Japanese treaty. N. Y. Times, May 22, 1918.

31 SERBIA-UNITED STATES. Reply of Serbia to the American note of May 30th relative to the oppressed nationalities of Austria-Hungary and expressing sympathy for the CzechoSlavs and Jugo-Slavs. Official Bulletin, 1918, 351.

June, 1918.

4 GREAT BRITAIN-UNITED STATES. Arbitration treaty renewed for five years. London Times (wk. ed.), June 7, 1918.

12 RUSSIA UKRAINE. Summary of treaty. New York Times, July 6, 1918.

13 RUSSIA-UNITED STATES. Bolshevist government asked of United States the return of the ships Simferoister, Nijni-Novgorod, Tula and Kishinev, taken over by the United States. New York Times, July 1, 1918.

21 GREAT BRITAIN. Imperial War Cabinet and Conference met in London. London Times, June 28, 1918.

24 GREAT BRITAIN-UNITED STATES. Treaty for reciprocal conscription of citizens, ratified by Senate. Current History, 8 (Pt. 2):221.