inevitably lead to the very cataclysm which it is desired to avert, To put an end to these incessant armaments and to seek Filled with this idea, his Majesty has been pleased to order The Ts me to propose to all the governments whose representatives vites a are accredited to the Imperial Court, the meeting of a confer- the pow ence which should occupy itself with this grave problem. This conference should be, by the help of God, a happy presage for the century which is about to open. It would converge in one powerful focus the efforts of all States which are sincerely seeking to make the great idea of universal peace triumph over the elements of trouble and discord. It would, at the same time, confirm their agreement by the solemn establishment of the principles of justice and right, upon which repose the security of States and the welfare of peoples. The first International Peace Conference was held at The Hague in 1899, and a second conference assembled in the same city in 1907. The most important results of the latter are thus summed up by Dr. James B. Scott, who was a technical delegate representing the United States. confere work of the sec The second International Peace Conference, like its prede- 384. Th cessor of 1899, endeavored to humanize the hardships necessarily incident to war and to substitute for a resort to arms a Hague pacific settlement of international grievances, which, if un- ference settled, might lead to war or make the maintenance of pacific relations difficult and problematical. The conference of 1907, no more than its immediate predecessor, satisfied the leaders of humanitarian thought. War was not abolished, nor was peace legislated into existence. Universal disarmament was as unacceptable now as then, and some few nations were still un not involving independence, vital interests, or national hono to a court of arbitration. The work of the Second Conference, for which the yea 1907 will be memorable, was twofold. First, it revised and enlarged the conventions of 1899 in the light of experience, in the light of practice as well as of theory, and put them forth to the world in a new and modified form. In the next place, the Conference did not limit itself to these subjects. To the three conventions of 1899, revised in 1907, were added ten new conventions. This simple statement shows the enormous field covered and the positive results achieved by the Second Conference within the comparatively short period of four months. Tried by the standards of results, the Conference clearly justified its existence, but it would have been a success had it demonstrated nothing more than the possibility of the representatives of forty-four nations to live in peace and quiet during four months. If it had done nothing more than to bring these representatives into close contact, to learn to understand one another's needs by understanding one another, the conference would have been a success. Leaving out minor matters, this Conference did four things of fundamental importance: 1. It provided for a meeting of the Third Conference within an analogous period, namely eight years, to be under the control of the powers generally, instead of the control of any one of them. 2. It adopted a convention for the nonforcible collection of contract debts, substituting arbitration and an appeal to reason for force and an appeal to arms. 3. It established a prize court to safeguard neutrals. 4. It laid the foundations of, if it did not put the finishing stone to, a great court of arbitration. western ing the century Among the chief political questions of the nineteenth 385. Pa century were: How far should the king, nobility, and issues i clergy retain the powers which they had so long enjoyed? Europe what kind of a parliament should the constitution provide? half of what should be its powers? who should be permitted to ninetee vote for the representatives which composed it? and, (from Seignob lastly, how far should the old restrictions be removed so that every one should be free to say and write what he wished and hold such religious ideas as appealed to him? In the several European States there was a tendency for four main political parties to form, each representing its particular views of these questions. A French historian gives the following description of the party programmes: 1. The Absolutist Conservative party, formed by the high The Ab officials and landed aristocracy, desired to maintain absolute tist par government, the authority of the Church, and the censorship of the press; it controlled all the central, eastern, and southern States of Europe. It no longer existed in England, for the former Absolutist party, the Jacobites, had not survived the century of political liberty. 2. The Liberal Conservative, or Constitutional party, some- The Co times called the Tory, or Right Center, composed of the upper tional p or Righ middle class and the liberal officeholders, demanded that the Center parliament should control the administration of the government, The Parliamentary party, or Left Center The Radical party aristocratic, the other elective. It believed that the electoral body should be limited by a considerable property qualification and that the parliament should vote the annual budget and leave the prince free in the choice of his ministers and in the direction of general policy. There should be no censorship of the press, but liberty should be restricted to the wealthy classes ; the nation's rights should be guaranteed by a constitution. This party was in power in the States which had constitutions; in the absolute monarchies it demanded a constitution, a representative assembly, and the abolition of censorship. 3. The Parliamentary Liberal party, sometimes called the Whig, or Left Center, recruited from the middle class, demanded not only control by the elective assembly but its supremacy over the sovereign, his ministers, and the aristocratic chamber. Its ideal was the parliamentary system, a ministry chosen from the party in majority in the lower house, governing in the prince's name, but according to the will of the elected representatives of the nation. It demanded a constitution which recognized the superior rights or sovereignty of the people, political liberties (such as liberty of the press, holding public meetings, and forming associations), and absolute religious liberty. . . . It would admit only property owners to vote, but tended to lower the qualifications for the franchise in order to include in the voting body the lower middle class. 4. The Democratic, or Radical party, formed by students, workingmen, writers, and lawyers, demanded, according to the motto of the French Revolution, the sovereignty and political equality of the people. It added to the demands of the Parliamentary party universal suffrage, remuneration of representatives, abolition of all political privileges of the wealthy classes, and separation of Church and State. Its ideal was a purely representative, democratic, and preferably republican government like that of the French Convention, or even a direct government by the people, in which they should themselves make the constitution. In 1815 this party, so far from being in power in any country, had not even the right to formulate its programme publicly, except in England, Sweden, and Norway. The two extreme parties, Absolutist and Democratic, held diametrically opposite conceptions of government and society. The Absolutists wanted a society based on hereditary inequality. . . . They also demanded an established religion. The Democrats admitted neither political, hereditary, nor ecclesiastical authority. A country might, however, pass from one of these extremes to the other gradually, for the four parties formed a continuous gradation. The Absolutist system became constitutional when the prince consented to grant a constitution, as in the South German States in 1816-1819. The constitutional system was insensibly transformed into the parliamentary system as the sovereign took more account of the wishes of the elective chamber, as in England after 1830. The parliamentary system became democratic with the extension of the suffrage and the assembly's acquisition of supremacy over all the other powers, as in Switzerland. Before the nineteenth century was over, however, the purely political questions as to the suffrage, the form of government, and rights of the individual began to be superseded by new questions growing out of the demands of the mass of the people and their sympathizers for help from the government in improving the condition of the people, especially the workingmen, and in lessening ignorance, poverty, and disease. Accordingly governments began to interfere in the conduct of business, the education of the people, and many other matters which had once been deemed purely private concerns. Many writers of insight and ability opposed the extension of the powers of the government on the ground that it would curtail the liberty of the individual and lead to innumerable abuses, perhaps to downright tyranny. The views of |