Chapter X: Part EIGHT (2)

From what Muravieff told us of his journey through Europe, it was evident that his presence and intervention had as a result the blunting of the edge of the Fashoda conflict. From his conferences with the different sovereigns he had evidently become convinced that there was no inclination at present to adopt any measures toward the reduction of armies, or to accept the principle that war and the military establishment should be done away with, and that, in face of this difficulty, a basis must be found on which the first step,—stopping the increase in armaments,—might be taken in common. “It cannot be expected,” he said, “that at this very first conference the great final object will be attained.”

“It would be sufficient,” I remarked, “if the powers would make an agreement not to wage any war in the next twenty, or even in the next ten, years.”

“Twenty years—ten years! _Vous allez trop vite, madame._ We could be satisfied if such an agreement were entered into for three years. But I believe even that will not be demanded. First and foremost there must be a pledge not to increase the contingents or make any new purchases of instruments of destruction. The constant demands for more money always mean a conflict between the ministers of war and the ministers of finance.”

“They ought to appoint ministers of peace,” said my husband, interrupting.

“Ministers of peace?” he repeated thoughtfully. “Well, yes, courts of arbitration, national tribunals—” And he began to talk with great practical knowledge about all the postulates of the peace movement.

“In my youth,” he told us, “when the movement was in its infancy,—I was then an attaché in Stockholm,—I enrolled myself as a member of the League.”

I gave him some details as to the condition and progress of the movement. Much of what I told him he already knew. The names of the prominent representatives whom I mentioned were familiar to him. He spoke first of Egidy. I handed him Houzeau-Descamps’s pamphlet, with a few appeals and articles. He asked me to keep him informed as to the course of events.

When at the end I expressed my delight at being able to press the hand that had written that epoch-making manifesto, he replied, “_Je n’y suis pour rien_; its only author is my august sovereign.”

The Spanish-American treaty of peace was signed in Paris. Our colleague, Émile Arnaud, addressed to the commission that was intrusted with this transaction a memorial, in which, among other things, it was suggested that a way should be made for establishing a Spanish-American arbitration treaty. The following reply was received from the chairman of the Spanish Commission:

My dear Sir:

I am in receipt of your valued letter of the fourth instant, in which
you do me the honor of communicating to me the resolutions of the
Turin Meeting of Delegates. The desires of the commission of which I
am chairman, as well as my own personal feelings, are in full
agreement with the ends so nobly pursued by the Peace League. All
right-thinking men, whose souls are elevated above the conflicts
arising from the passions and interests of colonial politics, are
to-day at one in recognizing the necessity of settling controversies
between nations by the only means worthy of reasonable and free
beings. Our commission has been, and will continue to be, inspired by
these ideas, and if these noble endeavors fail, it will not be our
fault. I thank you infinitely for the amiable offers which you make in
the name of the Peace League, and remain

Yours most respectfully,
Montero Rios

The Dreyfus affair is settling down more and more to a forlorn hope; the military system is fighting for its threatened authority. With it all one thing that is good has taken place, namely, the union of the intellectual class with the laboring men.

General Türr had an audience with King Humbert. Apropos of the conference called by the Tsar, he spoke of the necessity of combining the _Zweibund_ with the _Dreibund_, and forming a European confederation. I wrote in my diary, together with this bit of information, “This fact deserves to be noted.”

I find a very sad entry under date of December 30: Egidy dead!

Early yesterday, on his return from a lecture tour, he succumbed to an acute heart trouble. That is all I know as yet; I only know that a gap is made in my life, for I have had a warm love for this noble man, and have looked up to him in grateful admiration. His influence will continue, but what he would have yet done and accomplished with the magical power of his personality—that is lost. Moritz von Egidy, farewell!

Some time afterwards I received the following letter from his son:[28]

Marine School, Kiel, March 17, 1899

My dear Baroness:

Pardon me for my long delay in thanking you for the February number of
your periodical; now the receipt of a second copy impels me to write
to you at once.

What a comforting expression you have found for your loss and ours in
those words, “The consciousness that an Egidy was here”;[29] truly and
with all my heart I thank you for those words; they are worth
infinitely more to me than many, many words, dear and well meant
though they might be, because—this may sound far enough from
altruistic, but nevertheless is not to remain unspoken—because they
animate a thought which lay in my mind but which I had not yet found
any expression for. I do not know whether you know this immediate
feeling of thankfulness which comes over one in such a case, and which
I should like to make you understand.

All the more I am sorry to be obliged to tell you that you have been
misinformed about father’s funeral, particularly because the
information is so entirely contrary to father’s spirit. There is a
lack of recognition of the courageous, magnanimous act of the priest,
Court Chaplain Rogge, who appears in a wholly false light, from the
fact that he is only mentioned on the occasion when, in accordance
with the ritual of our Church (in which father was still a member in
spite of everything), he pronounced the blessing.

Yes, indeed, it was a courageous act for a royal Prussian court
chaplain, who, perhaps, the very next day preached before the Emperor
in the Potsdam Garrison church, to say such words as you will find in
the February number of _Versöhnung_, and the impression of this fine
act of his on the assembly was quite extraordinary, as was openly
acknowledged by men who, perhaps for the first time in dozens of
years, were listening again to a minister, and who had come there in
the secret apprehension of having their feelings of love for my father
hurt in some way.

Yes, the long way to the grave; but still it infused such a firm,
steadfast trust into our hearts as I escorted my splendid mother
along; our eyes were constantly attracted by the dazzling white heron
plume on the fur hussar cap as it nodded in front of us, keeping time
to the step of the bearers; the white plume, pointing upward, seemed
to us a symbol in the falling shadows of the evening. You know his
motto: “Forward! upward!”

Especially interesting to me was the news on page 61 about the
resolution of the organized English workingmen; for you see on the
very evening before I got the book I had quite a long discussion with
the professor who lectures for us on history here at the Academy. He
asserts that, in consequence of the English election law, the
predominant power in parliament will more and more pass over to the
side of the masses, i.e. the workingmen; and herein, he says, lies the
chief danger for peace, for the instinct of the masses is always
directed to war, especially in England, where the people’s heads are
turned by their imperialistic notions, joined with an ever more and
more pronounced national conceit. A more striking answer to this
assertion than the so-called resolution I can scarcely imagine.

Have I already told you, Baroness, that I presented “Marmaduke” (in
English text) to a French officer, with the dedication _Un souvenir
[de] nos idées qui se rencontraient_,—and that, too, after a speech on
the _Alliance franco-allemande_, which was made in the presence of
French army and navy officers, officials, and merchants, at four
o’clock in the morning, if you please, in our wardroom, on the
_Seeadler_, and not long before Fashoda, when the Russian friendship
was still very warm. The affair is noteworthy, for the reason that the
Frenchman is usually, in a large company, quite extraordinarily
careful and reserved. Moreover, the speech was made by a French
physician who was on the expedition with Marchand when lack of support
from his reserve stations compelled him to return. It was known quite
accurately in Madagascar at that time, April, 1898, that a French
expedition must have arrived at the Nile or would soon arrive there,
and every day the news of it was expected.

Remember me kindly to your husband, and I kiss your hand as

Your very devoted
Moritz von Egidy

LVII
BEFORE THE HAGUE

Emperor Nicholas regarding the reception of his rescript ·
Discouragement in St. Petersburg · Stead’s project for a peace crusade ·
Count Muravieff’s second circular · The wedge driven into the peace
question · The general conception and our conception · Journey to Berlin
· Osten-Sacken · Formation of an information committee · Letter from
Bebel · Service in honor of Egidy · Trip to Nice · Meeting with Madame
Adam · Monsieur Catusse · A noteworthy Dreyfus reminiscence · My lecture
· Madame Bashkirtseff · Trip to Cannes for a lecture · Lucien Murat’s
visit · Return to Harmannsdorf · Correspondence with Bloch, Scipione
Borghese, and D’Estournelles de Constant · Letters from Hodgson Pratt
and Élie Ducommun · A plan of action suggested by Henri Dunant

Stead told me that the Emperor Nicholas, in speaking to him of his circular, had said:

“Have I had a single letter, or has a single person ever represented to me that I exaggerate the danger? Not one! they all agree that I have spoken the truth. ‘But,’ they ask me, ‘what do you propose as a preventive?’ As if it were my affair and mine alone to prescribe a remedy for a disease from which all the nations are suffering!”

Even on the peoples’ side there was not that enthusiasm which the author of the rescript might have expected. “How diminish the burdens that rest so heavily on the shoulders of the people?” he cries to his fellow-rulers, and he begs them to seek some means to avoid the evil that threatens the whole world. And what is the answer to it? The masses to whom the Emperor specially appealed remained indifferent. Although the threat of war between France and England seemed to be dispelled, the preparations were continued unabated on both sides. The German Emperor, on his return from his journey to Jerusalem, immediately insisted on increasing his army by twenty-six thousand men.

In St. Petersburg a feeling of deep discouragement prevailed. By the beginning of December the disappointment was so great that the authorities almost decided to give up the project and call instead a conference of ambassadors in that capital.

But the world had, after all, not remained so indifferent. In England mass meetings were held in behalf of the projected Conference. William T. Stead proposed the scheme of an international peace crusade. The peace societies of the Continent gave a mighty response; thus, for example, in Austria our Union provided for participation in that action by means of assemblies and public demonstrations, and for many weeks in succession the “International Peace Crusade” formed a standing rubric in the _Neue Freie Presse_ and the _Neues Wiener Tagblatt_. In the same way the peace workers were bestirring themselves in other countries.

By this means, as well as through the influence of a few resolute members of the Russian government, the hope of success was again awakened in St. Petersburg, and the half-formed determination to substitute a simple gathering of ambassadors in place of the Conference was dropped; on the sixteenth of January a second circular was dispatched by Count Muravieff, once more inviting the governments to participate in the Conference as planned, and “suggesting” a programme of eight points:

1. An agreement not to increase, during a fixed period, the present
strength of the armed military and naval forces, nor the budgets
pertaining thereto, and a preliminary examination of the means by
which a reduction might be effected in future in the forces and
budgets above mentioned.

2. To prohibit the adoption, in the armies and fleets, of any new kind
of firearms and explosives, or of any kinds of powder more powerful
than those now in use either for rifles or cannon.

3. To restrict the use of the formidable explosives now existing, and
to prohibit the throwing of projectiles or explosives of any kind from
balloons or by similar means.

4. To prohibit the use, in naval warfare, of submarine torpedo boats
or plungers, or other similar engines of destruction, and to adopt an
agreement not to construct, in the future, vessels with rams.

5. To apply to naval warfare the definitions of the Geneva Convention
of 1864 as amended by the additional articles of 1868.

6. To neutralize, in accordance with the same convention, ships and
boats engaged in saving those in danger of drowning during or after an
engagement.

7. To revise the declaration concerning the laws and customs of war
which was elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels but has
remained unratified to the present time.

8. To accept in principle the employment of the “good offices” of
mediation and optional arbitration in cases lending themselves
thereto, with the object of preventing armed conflicts between
nations; and to come to an understanding with respect to the mode of
applying these good offices, and to establish a uniform practice in
using them.

It is understood that all questions concerning the political relations
of states and the order of things established by treaties, and, in
general, all questions which do not directly fall within the programme
adopted by the cabinets, are to be absolutely excluded from the
deliberations of the conference.

When the text of the second circular is compared with the first, it can be seen how much water had been poured into the fiery wine that was first offered to the world. In the first document there is no trace of points 3–7. Only in points 1 and 8 are the fundamental thoughts preserved. The other six points were evidently inserted as a result of the replies, recommendations, and opinions that Count Muravieff had gathered in his journey through Europe, and perhaps also from personal letters emanating from the various courts.

In the press, also, numerous utterances had declared that the only reasonable and positive result which could be attained by the Conference was to be found in modifying the regulations of war and in the domain of the Red Cross. Here even those who were not opponents of war and militarism would be able and willing to coöperate. Out of diplomatic consideration for such persons the six points in question were inserted. The famous military surgeon Professor Esmarch, a brother-in-law of the German Empress, worked especially hard for the Red Cross at the Conference.

By this introduction of questions concerning military customs and the humanizing of war into the deliberations of the Peace Conference, a wedge (surely not without purpose) was driven into it calculated to rob it of its individual character. That was distinctly shown in the Second Hague Conference, in 1907.

But I will not anticipate the historic evolution of things. For the time being I will confine myself to the year 1899, the last year of the departing century.

The conference was called; the date of its opening was set. Points 1 and 8 of the programme contained in essence everything that a complete revolution in accordance with the opinions of the peace champions could involve; and I remember that we—I mean my husband and myself and all our colleagues—faced the event, when it was announced, as one would face a momentous crisis full of promise, or rather already fulfilled. I was conscious of this historic phenomenon not merely as something that was taking place in the world without, but as my own inmost experience, as altogether a phase of my personal destiny. And I regarded it as “the one important thing.”

The skeptics of that day shrugged their shoulders at this notion, and even the wise ones of to-day would largely smile at it. Certainly, they might say, universal peace has not resulted from the Hague Conference; on the contrary, horrible wars followed it, and since it was called and repeated, the rivalry in increasing armaments has gone on with accelerating strength.

It is hard to make headway against such naïve arguments when they are based on succession of events rather than on their connection and their causes. There are minds on the chessboard of society which absolutely cannot see farther than from one square, from one move, to the next.

Assuredly, for the great majority the whole matter was something so novel, so unprecedented, so unexpected, and it was so unapproachable by familiar paths of thought and feeling, that the widespread misconception of it was quite natural. For the rest of us, who for years had been concentrating our labor, our thought, and our desires on this field, for us who had traced its origins and seen the bright-shining goal clearly outlined before us, for us it was just as natural to realize that the new epoch—the warless day, _l’ère sans violence_, as Egidy used to call it—had already come when the first steps toward its practical inauguration were taken so publicly.

In January, 1899, my husband and I went to Berlin to work there in behalf of the crusade, or at least to arrange for a meeting in behalf of the coming Conference. Our first call was on the Russian ambassador, Osten-Sacken. It was remarkable, but we found that he was no enthusiast for the affair inaugurated by his _auguste maître_; his wife also showed herself rather skeptical.

I addressed notes of invitation to the various leaders of political and scientific circles of Berlin to meet for a discussion. Many of the gentlemen responded to my call, and after a very interesting debate a committee was formed to take charge of public demonstrations in favor of the Peace Conference. Unfortunately, my diary of that period was not kept up, and I cannot mention by name all those who responded to my invitation and suggestion, or who declined it. I remember only that the deputies, Theodor Barth and Professor Förster,—the latter also director of the observatory,—were among the first group; that General du Verdy wrote a very sympathetic letter, and that Bebel replied with the following interesting note, which is still in my possession:

Berlin, January 31, 1899

Dear Madam:

You had the kindness to invite me to call last Sunday. Unfortunately,
I was unable to respond to your desire, because the letter did not
tell me where you were, and I was unable to learn until it was too
late.

Permit me herewith to add a few words regarding my position on the
question of the Russian Emperor’s peace manifesto, since I may take it
for granted that I have to attribute to this matter the honor of your
letter.

The Social-Democratic party is sympathetically disposed toward the
thought that underlies the manifesto. Up to the present time it has
been the only party that has opposed the development of militarism in
almost the same words as the Russian Emperor’s; it has been alone and
consistent in upholding the idea of national brotherhood for the
purpose of promoting the common interests of mankind.

The fact that now the sovereign of an empire like Russia, whose policy
hitherto has demanded militarism first of all and made it necessary,
should at this time appear as its opponent, is highly noteworthy, but
cannot prevent us from looking upon the action with a certain distrust
until it is proved by corresponding deeds that this is unjustified.
The calling of the Conference, with the familiar programme lately
published, is not as yet sufficient.

Moreover, there are at all events very important internal political
reasons that have incited the Russian government to undertake the
advocacy of the imperial plan, which otherwise would scarcely have
happened. Even an absolute autocrat is not supremely powerful.

For the reason here briefly summarized, the Social-Democratic party is
somewhat cool toward an agitation in behalf of the Emperor’s
manifesto; it cannot by a heart-and-soul participation in this
agitation undertake the responsibility for what will be said and done
towards the acceptance and glorification of the Emperor’s manifesto.
If representatives of the party should then wish to protest, this
would only cause discord, which would be detrimental to the cause
itself.

I believe, therefore, that it is in the interest of both sides to
march in separate columns in this campaign, and to allow each tendency
to advocate its special standpoint independently.

With great respect,
A. Bebel

While we were in Berlin a great service in honor of Egidy was held (January 29). It was inspiring and elevating.

The next day there was a public meeting called by the Berlin Peace Society, at which Dr. Hirsch, Schmidt-Cabanis the writer, and I made addresses.

In response to an invitation from the Countess Gurowska we went from Berlin for a fortnight’s visit at Château Montboron in Nice. I was to speak both at Cannes and at Nice about the approaching conference. We were met at the railway station at Nice by our hostess’s husband and General Türr. It was just at the time of the great carnival, and the two gentlemen took us to the city hall, where we had a fine view of the battle of flowers. The following day we were again invited to the city hall to witness the burning of Prince Carnival, a figure constructed of straw.

The reception rooms of the hall were crowded with distinguished guests, and among others I met Madame Juliette Adam. “You must come to-morrow to the Baroness’s lecture,” said a gentleman of our group to her. “To a lecture on peace? I?” cried the editor of _La Nouvelle Revue_. “Certainly not, I am for war.” I was drawn into a discussion with her, in which I defended my side in a low voice, she hers in a wrathful tone well suited to the subject discussed.

The same evening I made the acquaintance of a very sympathetic Frenchman, M. Catusse, who had just been appointed consul general for France in Sweden. He proved to be a warm fellow-champion. Our conversation—as was the case with almost all conversations at that time—turned upon the _Affaire_. And then he told me the following: His wife kept a diary. On one page in it, during the year 1894, it was noted that an officer who had been sitting next her at a banquet, and who had followed the trial and had the day before been present at the degradation of Alfred Dreyfus, said to her after dinner, _Hier nous avons condamné un innocent_ (“Yesterday we punished an innocent man”).

My lecture, which I delivered under the chairmanship of General Türr, won me enthusiastic applause from a very large cosmopolitan audience. Many of the Russians who were present asked to be presented to me in order to express their appreciation; among others an elderly lady clad in deep mourning, who announced that she was the mother of Marie Bashkirtseff, that young genius who died so prematurely.

The next day I saw her in her own home, and found that it was a sort of memorial temple to the departed; on all the walls there was nothing but pictures painted by Marie Bashkirtseff, or representing Marie herself at all periods of her life and in the most varying phases, always full of beauty and charm. Neither could the sorrowful mother speak of anything else than of her famous daughter.

A few days later I gave a lecture in Cannes. Luncheon on the _Arche de Noé_; Italian singers on board; magnificent weather; guests Count Rochechouart, the mayor, the president of the Nautical Club, Türr, and another gentleman—I do not remember his name—with a brutal face. The table talk turns on Dreyfus.

“I do not admit,” says Count Rochechouart, “that seven officers condemned a comrade without being certain of their position.”

The Mayor: “Other people, not knowing the circumstances, have no right to express an opinion.”

The Nautical President: “A dozen bullets ought to have been sent through his body.”

Rochechouart: “I belong to only one league—it is impossible to be of another—Déroulède’s.”

The Brutal Man: “Obviously; I should like to see you being anything else.”

So these are my fellow-banqueters before a lecture on peace!

The lecture fell very flat. The hall was pretty empty. No enthusiasm. I have not often made such a miserable speech. After the lecture, which ended about four o’clock in the afternoon, we took a walk through the wonderful city of gardens.

In Nice we were rejoiced by a call which brought back sweet recollections of the beautiful days in the Caucasus. I read in the local newspaper that Prince Lucien Murat and his wife, born Princesse de Rohan, had come to make a visit to the Empress Eugénie in neighboring Cimièz. I immediately wrote a note to my former little German pupil to tell him that we were near at hand. The next day the young couple came to see us. One cloud only darkened the delight of the reunion, namely, the tragic death of Prince Achille Murat, Lucien’s father. The incident was not mentioned.

On our return to Harmannsdorf our days were filled with preparations for the journey to The Hague; I wrote numerous articles and sent letters to all points of the compass. I had buried myself in Bloch’s great work and had written him about it. In reply I received the following letter:

Warsaw, April 8, 1899

My dear Baroness:

Heartiest thanks for your kind lines. The service ascribed to me is,
however, only the result of the movement against war which has been
going on, and in which you personally, gracious Baroness, have taken
such an important part; and I must bear witness that your personal
talent, in my opinion, has accomplished more than all technical
arguments can possibly accomplish.

Unfortunately I could not write you sooner because I had an unusual
task to finish. Unfortunately, also, I am still so very busy that I
can only send a sketch in place of the desired programme.

In my opinion it would be best for an agitation to be made, to the end
that the Conference _in pleno_, or that single states, should
inaugurate an investigation as to the possibility of carrying through
a great war.

At this moment the governments are not humble enough, public opinion
is not as yet ripe enough, to be able to obtain results from the
Conference. It would be much more practical if the sessions could be
postponed until autumn, so as to let the separate states have time for
arranging investigations and preparing public opinion.

I will at all events endeavor to meet you so as to talk the matter
over more in detail. I shall be in London about the fourteenth, at
Hotel Cecil, and shall be at the Grand Hôtel in Paris toward the
eighteenth, and there I expect to remain about a fortnight.

I will do my best to promote matters in the direction indicated.

It is impossible for me to predict to-day whether I shall be able to
get to Scheveningen. At any rate I shall take the liberty of writing
you in regard to this, and one of the principal motives of my desire
to be there would be to have the opportunity of becoming better
acquainted with you.

With genuine loyalty and respect
J. Bloch

I also asked Prince Scipione Borghese to come to The Hague, as I had just been informed that he had come out in favor of the peace cause. He wrote back:

Felice Scovolo, Lago di Garda, April 20, 1899

My dear Madam:

Your pleasant letter, which I am very late in answering, has excited
our desires more than you would believe possible. To spend some time
with you and _un groupe du high-life pacifique_, closely following the
work of this Conference, which is without contradiction one of the
culminating facts of the history of our century, seems to us a
delicious dream.

Unhappily your interesting invitation will preserve all the beauty of
a dream, which is always somewhat melancholy because of its unreality.
The marriage of my youngest sister to Count Hoyos, which is to be
celebrated toward the end of May in the depths of Hungary, calls us in
that direction, and up to that time I am kept here by the carrying out
of a social and agrarian transformation in which I am enormously
interested and which keeps me at its beck and call.

As for the Conference, the idea of which is in itself so beautiful and
its convocation such a great victory, I hope that the good will of
certain governments may compensate for the ill will of so many others,
and that the whole thing will not remain in the realm of ideas but
will give us some practical fruits....

You will find in our two Italian delegates, Count Nigra and Count
Zanini, two charming men who are personally very well disposed.

Sincerely yours
Scipione Borghese

I received from Paris the subjoined letter, from one who was quite unknown to me. It was the first step of an animated intercourse both epistolary and personal,—I may say of a faithful friendship and collaboration which has not yet ceased to ally me with the author, the most successful peace worker in France.

Paris, April 10, 1899

My dear Madam:

Since I have abandoned diplomacy to enter Parliament, I have begun to
publish in the _Revue des deux mondes_ a series of studies on the
precarious state of Europe and on the necessity imposed on all
civilized states of uniting in behalf of progress and of war on evil.
These studies, the first dated April 1, 1896, the second July 19,
1897, will shortly be brought to a close by a third part, in which
international arbitration and relative disarmament are brought forward
as the conclusion.

My nomination as one of the French delegates to The Hague will prevent
me from finishing this long work, though at the same time permitting
me to make it more united. I perceive, in fact, that I still require
many indispensable data not found in books. Perhaps I might obtain
them by addressing myself to your kindness of heart, since you allow
none of the manifestations of public opinion regarding universal peace
to escape you.

This is the question that preoccupies me: Is popular sentiment in
Austria-Hungary generally and personally hostile to war? No one can
know that, but still one may have an impression. What is yours?

If in each country in the world a like opinion, not in the clouds but
well thought out, could be obtained, with what force it could and
should weigh on the governments and consequently on their delegates at
the Conference.

Please accept, madam, the very respectful admiration of a Frenchman
who, without knowing you, is devoted to you.

D’Estournelles de Constant

In my reply to this letter I brought up the hindrances which, through the apathetic and sometimes hostile opinions of influential persons and of the masses, were blocking the work of the Conference. From this point of view I pleaded for a continuity of the international conferences; for, while I expected everything from the development of the movement as already started, certainly not much was to be expected from this first session, made up as it was of at least as many doubters and opponents as adherents. Thereupon Baron d’Estournelles wrote me a long letter, from which I translate the following passage:

I am completely in accord with you, gracious lady, only I am somewhat
more optimistic than you are with regard to the results of the
Conference. I believe, and the more I think it over the more I
believe, that the Conference cannot help doing some good—more than is
expected of it. The members will feel the revelation of the living
world, the wishes of humanity, and the nearness of the terrible
dangers that threaten Europe.

None of the governments represented at The Hague will be willing to
expose themselves to the unpopularity, the dissatisfaction, the
ridicule, of the people, which would be evoked by a failure or a
wretched, disappointing result.

Therefore, voluntarily or involuntarily, some good will be
accomplished, and, once on this path, it must be pursued to the end.
It will be impossible, it will be dangerous, to hold back.

The pamphlet entitled “Perpetual Peace,” by the Munich professor Von Stengel, came out. In this all the arguments of the opponents, all the glorification of war and of armaments, that have ever been brought against the notion of peace are summed up, and there is added out-and-out derision of the approaching conference daydream. And the author of this pamphlet had been nominated by the German government as its representative at the Hague Conference! This aroused great consternation in our circles, and the German peace associations protested publicly.

From Austria, Lammasch, professor of international law, and Count Welsersheimb, attached to the diplomatic service, were appointed as delegates. The latter, hitherto a stranger to me, made me a call in order to secure facts relating to the peace movement.

On the eleventh of May I received a telegram from Bloch. The desire to form a committee, consisting of political economists, military men, and politicians, which should institute and publish investigations concerning the presumable results of a future war between the great powers, characterized the aim of Bloch’s plans and action. He telegraphed:

Shall reach The Hague the sixteenth. Hope to find room at your hotel.
In case Conference at the beginning fails to institute serious
investigation, plan to form a committee which shall undertake this
work. I have letters from Prussian generals which show that the idea
is already ripe. I am ready to guarantee the expenses. It would be
very desirable, using Vienna as a rendezvous, to secure a number of
names of political economists and statisticians, and, if possible, of
military men. I think that, for execution of the plan, reporters on
special divisions of my work, or independent workers, should be
nominated, who subsequently should be coördinated through a central
committee. Any other method, however, equally acceptable.

Bloch.

The two grand masters of the movement, Hodgson Pratt and Élie Ducommun, sent me the following letters before my departure for The Hague:

St. Germain-en-Laye [without date]

Madame la Baronne:

I see from the newspapers that you are, as is most fitting, at The
Hague. You are a witness of one of the greatest events of modern
times, and I venture to write a few lines to congratulate you on the
fact that you have been able to contribute to the bringing about of
this great event. All changes in human affairs are in these days due
to the all-powerful influence of _public opinion_; and you have
possessed special gifts and opportunities of contributing to the
formation of that great power of opinion. The very fact of your being
_a woman_, and of your being a member of the aristocracy in an
essentially aristocratic and military nation, has powerfully attracted
attention in Continental Europe by your writings and speeches. You
have been able to speak and write with a special and personal
experience not possessed by the majority of the advocates of
international unity and concord. To this work you have brought the
great gifts of eloquence and sincere enthusiasm. God has blessed your
efforts in enabling you to see at least some of the results of your
devoted and unselfish work.

In such a moment it is alike a pleasure and a duty to give expression
to the feelings which, as a humble brother during many years, I
entertained in regard to your great services with all my heart.

I hoped to have said this to you _viva voce_ at Bern a few weeks ago,
and was much disappointed at not seeing you there. I regretted that
the members of the commission did not see their way to the appointment
of two or three experts in the question of arbitration tribunals, and
so forth, such as Mr. La Fontaine, and others.

But doubtless there are delegates who will do all that is necessary,
and influence their colleagues by their knowledge and earnestness. It
is a profound source of satisfaction to know that Sir Julian
Pauncefote is taking part in the proceedings; no better man in our
cause could have been sent.

I desire to be heartily remembered to the Baron von Suttner; and
remain with profound esteem,

Yours truly
Hodgson Pratt

Bern, May 10, 1899

My dear Madam and dear Colleague:

You have caused me great joy in addressing to me your two letters,
which I consider as the private diary of an apostle of peace, and
which we shall preserve with particular care because there will be
found in them, in time to come, precious information. Many of our
friends to whom I have communicated your impressions have got from
reading them a confidence and a courage which they to some degree
lacked. Continue, I beg of you, to keep me informed in this way.

The editing of the bimonthly correspondence will naturally demand the
greatest prudence, and I shall find it difficult to make selections
from the reports of the press; your _renseignements intimes_ will help
me out of this difficult pass.

You cannot believe how many inquiries for information I receive to
which I am obliged to reply immediately, carefully guarding my
replies. It is a good sign, for it means that everywhere people are
beginning to interest themselves in the questions that figure in the
programme of The Hague; but the bad side of the medal is that, as I am
obliged to remain at my post, ready at any given moment to radiate
from the center to the extremities whatever it may become necessary to
communicate to the groups of peace at a given moment, I cannot bring
to you at The Hague the support of my presence and my efforts. Each to
his place! You fit admirably in yours, and that is the main thing.

_Bon courage!_

Every good wish to M. de Suttner, I beg of you, and to the other
devoted peace workers who may inquire for me occasionally.

Your devoted and affectionate colleague
Élie Ducommun

The founder of the Red Cross, Henri Dunant, gave me the following directions for the way we are traveling. Proof is shown therein that Henri Dunant desired from the Conference not the promotion of the work which he had established, but rather the establishment of a great new work, international justice. No longer was “Red Cross” his rallying cry, but “White Banners.”

May 16, 1899

My dear Baroness:

Permit me, madam, to insist very strongly on what I consider a capital
point, namely, the extreme importance of seeing the Congress pass an
official, diplomatic resolution on the subject of a _Permanent
Diplomatic Commission on Mediation_. In my letter of the twelfth I
called it a “Permanent Bureau on Mediation”; now the word “Commission”
is more suitable, and, too, it must not be confounded with the
permanent International Bureau of Peace at Bern, which is a voluntary
work and has no diplomatic mission—that is to say, in the eyes of
diplomacy it does not count.

All our efforts ought to be concentrated on this special point,
without concerning ourselves with the rest. And for this, personal
dealings on your part with the delegates are necessary. But in my
opinion it is important to go no farther. Let them discuss the first
seven articles of the official Russian programme as much as they
please, and let us not meddle with it; do not dispute with them on
this subject, for it would weaken the authority of your words. But, as
to Article 8 of the said programme, stand firm on the necessity, the
urgency, the opportuneness, and even the courtesy toward his Majesty
the Tsar, of a formal diplomatic decision of the Hague Conference, in
a “resolution” to be made obligatory by the subsequent official
ratification of all civilized governments. Hint to the delegates that
it would be desirable that this resolution relative to Article 8
should be distinct from all the others relative to the first seven
articles.

Whatever be the instructions of their respective governments, the
delegates can always telegraph or write their governments on this
special point, either before or at the moment of the discussion of
Article 8, to ask for special instructions relative to it. This was
done during the Geneva Congress of 1864, and many governments wired
their delegates authorization to sign the protocol of the convention.
With much more reason they could authorize the signature of a “special
resolution relative to Article 8.”

To attain these ends, it is important to talk the delegates over, to
win them one by one, to astonish them by the moderation of our desires
and the definiteness of what we wish. You alone, madam, are capable of
doing this. The opportunity is unique; but let us keep within bounds.
If this resolution is passed, everything is won. The future will
develop all that we can desire; but let us not lose ourselves in
details.

I was at Brussels in 1874, when Prince Gortchakoff cheated me out of
my congress in favor of prisoners of war (under preparation for two
years) by supplanting it with a congress on the “usages of war,”
swallowing up the prisoners and even the Geneva Convention! I suffered
terribly at that time, for there was no result, and here for
twenty-five years those deliberations taken in secret congress have
remained a dead letter!

You know that Article 8 runs thus:

The acceptance, in principle, of the use of good offices, mediation,
and voluntary arbitration, in cases adapted to such means, with the
object of preventing armed conflicts between nations; an agreement as
to the mode of applying these means; and the adoption of a uniform
practice in using them.

I am, my dear Baroness, most respectfully yours
H. Dunant

P.S. At some moment during the Congress—which will last a long
time—could you not see the young Queen in order to explain all this to
her?

1. Article 8 must be made the subject of a special “resolution” by the
Hague Congress (a separate protocol).

2. And on the subject of this special resolution the Congress should
try to find a diplomatic method of acting which shall permit Holland
to play the part which the Swiss Federal Council plays for the Geneva
Convention. It is a fine rôle.

Affairs do not proceed promptly in diplomacy. The Swiss Federal
Council convoked the governments by a diplomatic invitation dated June
6, 1864. But the recommendation signed by France went to the same
states a few days later in June.

Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Paris, and I had
arranged that on April 22, 1864; and from that time the Swiss Federal
Council at Bern has had all the protocols in its possession. Only last
year it received notices of assent to the Geneva Convention from the
Transvaal, the Republic of Uruguay, Nicaragua, and Honduras; and that
has been pending since 1864. Holland should play for the “resolution”
resulting from Article 8 of the programme of the Congress the same
rôle as the Swiss Federal Council does for the Convention. For this
purpose the delegates taken individually must be persuaded to separate
the protocols; one protocol for the first seven articles of the
programme (or any other way, as they please) and an entirely separate
and independent protocol for the “resolution” proceeding from Article
8.

And now, with minds keyed high, and with joyous hearts, we got ready to go to The Hague.

LVIII
THE FIRST PEACE CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE

My Hague diary · Arrival · First interview · Stead’s interviews with the
Tsar and with Bülow · Our call on the Austrian delegation · Divine
service in the Russian chapel · Opening session · Johann von Bloch ·
Party at Beaufort’s · Yang-Yü and his wife · Baron d’Estournelles · Léon
Bourgeois · We give a dinner · Richet’s call · Luncheon with Frau
Moscheles · Andrew D. White · Extract from Staal’s opening speech · Call
on our ambassador’s wife · Count Costantino Nigra · Reception at court ·
Lord Aberdeen · Sir Julian Pauncefote · Bloch plans a series of lectures
· Plenary assembly of May 25 · The Russian, English, and American
motions

In 1900 I published a comprehensive book[30] in which I gathered together all the events of my sojourn at The Hague, all the reports regarding the proceedings, the text of the most important speeches, and the accurate statement of the various conventions. Those who may wish to have a detailed account of the character, the course of events, and the direct results of that historic assemblage I would refer to that publication. Here I shall merely introduce my personal recollections; I shall copy in their original form extracts from my private journal which I used and elaborated for that book, of course excluding everything that was too confidential and therefore uninteresting.

At the same time I shall introduce minutes of the proceedings and observations on world politics, for, if I am to give the history of my life conscientiously, these things require much space. They were not applied as accidental embroidery, but have been woven into the very fabric of my existence. Whatever has taken place either in behalf of the cause of peace or in opposition to it, anywhere in the world,—and especially what occurred in those days at The Hague, where the Conference was called together in the name of that cause,—was not a mere experience from without, it was an essential part of my life.

May 16. Arrival at The Hague. The city steeped in the magic of spring. Radiant sunshine. Lilac perfumes in the cool air. Our rooms in the hotel all ready. Nine o’clock in the evening. We are still sitting in the dining-room. The correspondent of the _Neues Wiener Tagblatt_ is announced. Receive him and he takes his place at our table. He begins the interview with great liveliness:

“Have just been having a talk with the representative of a first-class power. There seems to be no great doubt as to the prospective outcome,—amplification of the Geneva Convention—”

“If nothing more than that should be accomplished, it would be an outrageous trick played on the hopes of the nations, and also a disappointment for the Tsar, whose wishes for an arbitral tribunal—”

The correspondent laughingly interrupted me:

“We spoke about this also. Now that is simply childish. The states would not comply with a decision which did not please them.”

“Such a case has never once occurred.”

“For the reason that, up to the present time, arbitration has settled only trivialities; but when vital questions are concerned—”

Forever and ever the time-worn arguments. I heard it come in its regular sequence, “the vital question,” although no one knows exactly what he means by it. What, indeed, can these “vital” concerns be that are best promoted by killing off men by the hundred thousand?

May 17. Stead arrived. Directly from St. Petersburg, where he had an audience with Nicholas II, lasting an hour and a half, and spoke quite candidly about Finland. The Tsar also empowered him to speak on the same theme—in favor of Finnish liberties—the next day in a public assembly.

Stead also stopped over in Berlin on his way hither, and had a conversation with Bülow, bringing up among other things the case of Professor Stengel and his antipeace pamphlet. Herr von Bülow at first denied that the professor had written the brochure, and was quite hot about it.

“It is not true,” he declared, “it is pure invention.”

“That cannot well be said, for the pamphlet is in its third edition....”

“It was a simple lecture,” the minister now opined, “delivered in a gathering of friends, and issued by the publisher behind the author’s back.”

That is scarcely thinkable either; but this much is clear,—the pamphlet, if not its author, is disavowed. The appointment had been made, it was claimed, without any knowledge of the lecture. And if that were the case, Herr von Stengel should have declined the appointment. Any one who has publicly called an endeavor a daydream does not proceed to take part in the dreaming. Suppose then the intention or the orders were to oppose it! But even if these orders were not directly given, still it is melancholy that an opponent of the cause should be sent as a delegate.

The Grelixes have arrived too. Felix Moscheles tells of the campaign of agitation which he and Stead have undertaken all through the English cities. He was one of the deputation that communicated the results of the crusade to the Russian ambassador, who had already been appointed to head the Russian delegation. Herr von Staal said to Moscheles: “The Conference is admirably prepared for by these public demonstrations of the people’s desire for peace. If I may be pardoned for using the vulgar phrase, _Vous avez mis du foin dans nos bottes_.”[31]

In the afternoon a round of calls. When our carriage draws up before the Hotel Paulez, Count Welsersheimb comes out and invites us up to his drawing-room, saying that the whole Austrian delegation is assembled there. In fact, the little room is filled with our fellow-countrymen, among them Herr von Merey, head of a division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,—slender, aristocratic, agreeable; Viktor von Khuepach zu Ried, lieutenant colonel on the general staff; Count Soltys, commander; Professor Lammasch, abrupt but at the same time polite; Count Zichy, not a delegate but Austrian ambassador at Munich. The conversation turns naturally on the Conference. I have the impression that those present are filled with lively interest regarding this phenomenon “Conference,” but an interest mingled with astonishment and skepticism, with an amazed and curious excitement, such as the marvels of nature seen for the first time are wont to arouse.

May 18. The eighteenth of May, 1899! This is an epoch-making date in the history of the world. As I write it down I am deeply impressed with this conviction. It is the first time, since history began to be written, that the representatives of the governments come together to find a means for “securing a permanent, genuine peace” for the world. Whether or not this means will be found in the Conference that is to be opened to-day has nothing to do with the magnitude of the event. In the endeavor lies the new direction!

May 19. This is the way yesterday went: In the morning, divine service in the Russian chapel in celebration of the Tsar’s birthday. My Own and I were invited. The place is small and scarcely a hundred people were present, the men in gala uniform, the ladies in semi-informal dress. The high mass begins. The congregation, all standing, reverent and devout, follow it. It seemed to me as if it were my part not to pray _for_ Nicholas II, but to address _to_ him the petition: “O thou brave of heart, remain firm! Let not the ingratitude and the spite and the imbecility of the world penetrate to thee to disturb and paralyze; even if an attempt is made to belittle and misinterpret and even block thy work, remain firm!”

The priest holds out the cross to be kissed: the mass is over. Now greetings and introductions are exchanged. I make the acquaintance of Minister Beaufort’s wife.

Drive to the opening session of the Conference. Brilliant sunshine. Numerous carriages proceed through the shaded avenues to the “House in the Wood,” as if in a festive parade in the Prater or the Bois. At the grated gate a military guard of honor makes the customary salutes. I am the only woman permitted to be present.

What I experienced here was like the fulfillment of a lofty ambitious dream. “Peace Conference!” For ten long years the words and the idea have been laughed to scorn; its advocates, feeble private persons, are regarded as “Utopians” (the favorite polite circumlocution for “crazy fellows”); and now, at the summons of the most powerful of the war lords, the representatives of all the sovereigns are gathering, and their assembly bears that very name, “Peace Conference.”

From the opening address of Minister Beaufort:

By his initiative the Emperor of Russia has desired to fulfill the
wish expressed by his predecessor, Alexander I, that all the rulers of
Europe should come to an understanding together, so as to live like
brethren and to support one another mutually in their necessities.