Chapter XVII: The Conference of Algeciras (1)

The Conference of Algeciras opened formally on January 16, 1906.[1070] The place was badly adapted to such a purpose. It was small, inadequately prepared to house and entertain the one hundred and fifty delegates, secretaries, and newspaper correspondents who had to remain there for over two months and a half. The delegates were quartered at one of the two hotels and the journalists at the other. They were thrown into constant contact with each other. The place swarmed with newspaper correspondents, most of them from France. There were about fifty principal ones, not to speak of the minor ones. They saw or heard or surmised about everything. They brought public opinion to the door of the Conference, and the French particularly were able at times of crisis or of important decisions to exercise a marked influence on the course of the deliberations.[1071]

Among the delegates there were three important groups, the German, the American-Italian-Austrian, and the British-French-Spanish-Russian. The representatives of Morocco and the smaller states took practically no part in the proceedings. In the first group Herr von Radowitz was a nonentity—old, feeble, so elusive and cautious as to be difficult to negotiate with. Count Tattenbach was the positive force, described by his British colleague as “a rasping, disagreeable man, not straightforward or truthful and evidently has to exercise much effort to control his temper.”[1072] He made a bad impression on the delegates by his blunt aggressiveness. Although he knew the Moroccan problem thoroughly, he was unsuited for the delicate negotiations required at the Conference. By his personality and methods he injured his country’s interests. He was more influential with his government than was Herr von Radowitz, but as a rule both men merely carried out orders from Berlin. Mr. White (the American delegate), Marquis Visconti Venosta, and Count Welsersheimb (the Austrian delegate) acted as mediators. M. Révoil and Sir Arthur Nicolson were the leaders of the third group. Both had served their respective countries as minister at Tangier. M. Révoil was a supple, subtle reasoner, inclined like Herr von Holstein to lose sight of his objective in the mazes of his argument. He was oversensitive, overcautious, and very mistrustful of Germany. His obstinacy proved in the end of advantage to France, but he would have made a number of mistakes serious for his country and for the success of the Conference if he had not had the advice of Sir Arthur Nicolson. The latter was the most astute member taking an active part in the assembly, although he played his rôle so quietly that the other delegates, particularly the Germans, did not perceive his significance. A true diplomat, he carried out the difficult British policy admirably. It was primarily his work that the Conference thrashed the fundamental problems through to a definite conclusion.

When the Conference was organized, it was decided that the formal session should be reserved for ratification of matters already agreed upon unanimously in the committee of the whole, composed of all the delegates sitting unofficially and engaging in free debate. There was also to be a special committee of formulation to draft the propositions agreed upon.[1073] Naturally the work was done in these two bodies. More important were the direct negotiations between the delegates of France and Germany, which after January 25, at the urging of the other delegates, were almost constantly in progress.

The basic principles governing the work of the Conference in preparing a program of reform for Morocco were laid down by the president, the Duke of Almodovar, in his opening speech. After previous agreement with the French and German delegates,[1074] he stated that everyone wished “reforms based on the triple principle of the sovereignty of the Sultan, integrity of his empire, and equality of treatment in matters commercial, that is, the open door.” It was not the mission of the conference, he said, to work out a complete plan for the administrative transformation of Morocco, but rather to “study together the means of applying measures which at present appear to be the most urgent and the easiest to introduce.”

The Conference, pessimistic at the beginning, took up first the questions which could be easily settled. Since these were considered primarily from the standpoint of practicality, agreement was soon reached on the following: “Regulation concerning the surveillance and repression of contraband of arms”; “declaration concerning the better collection of taxes and the creation of new revenues”; “regulation concerning the customs duties of the empire and the repression of fraud and of contraband”; “declaration relating to public services and to public works.” The discussion of these matters was unimportant.[1075] The troublesome problems were those of the organization of the police and the establishment of a state bank. The solution of these would determine whether France or Germany should emerge victorious. After the initial success on the minor matters, the delegates confronted these two questions with more hope.[1076]

Marquis Visconti Venosta and Mr. White first tried to mediate upon the basis that Germany should make concessions on the bank, France on the police. M. Révoil was willing, being ready, so he privately informed the British delegate, to associate Italy with France and Spain on the police, but he asked for definite proposals.[1077] At the instigation of the other delegates, Herr von Radowitz and M. Révoil began direct conversations on these matters on January 25.[1078] Puzzled by so many reports of different German projects on the police,[1079] M. Révoil assumed the defensive. But on Sir Arthur Nicolson’s advice he laid his proposals frankly before the German representatives a few days later.[1080] On January 29 M. Regnault, French adviser at the Conference, outlined for Count Tattenbach the French plan on the bank as follows: The bank should be subject to French law and to the French judicial system; the capital should be so divided that France should receive 27 per cent, Spain 23 per cent, Great Britain 20 per cent, Germany 20 per cent, Italy 10 per cent; an administrative council of ten members should be chosen according to nationality by the shareholders; a directory should be named by this council; a committee of discount in Tangier selected from the resident shareholders should be established and a committee of examination should be chosen by the future subscribers; the preferential right to make loans held by the French banks should continue, but perhaps be relinquished in return for an increase in the per cent of capital given to France. M. Regnault justified the project on the grounds that “the preponderance of French economic interests in Morocco must be given expression therein,” that it was a question of maintaining the open door without destroying acquired interests, and that “the open door does not signify that those who are in the house must leave it.”[1081]

On February 3 M. Révoil proposed to Herr von Radowitz that the mandate for the police be given to France and Spain together. “Over its form, extension and control all desirable international agreements could be made,” he said, so as to prevent any other right from being deduced therefrom and to guarantee complete commercial equality. He declared that France pursued no special political aims in Morocco, but that she must demand protection in proportion to her preponderant material interests. He also informed the German delegate indirectly that France might agree to the addition of a third Power to control the execution of the mandate.[1082]

In the end the German government was to accept practically these terms, but at the moment it was averse to making any concessions, believing that the Conference, “so far as grouping and general course are concerned, is turning out favorably for us.”[1083] Since it regarded the bank as more influential in the long run than the police, it rejected the French claim to preference for making loans on the grounds that that claim violated Article XVII of the Convention of Madrid, and proposed the use of the Egyptian mixed codes and the equal division of the capital among the Powers. Thus internationalism instead of a French preponderant control would be established in the bank.[1084]

On the question of the police, which was the more important, the German government offered various plans to prevent France from obtaining military control. It endeavored particularly to interest President Roosevelt in this problem. In a long dispatch to Washington on January 20, it laid three different proposals before the President: First, the individual Powers might participate on a basis of equality in the reorganization of the police by having each one, or at least the more important ones, assume a mandate for a certain port. A time limit should be set, and the Powers should renounce any idea of giving to their occupation a permanent character. For unity of policy the Powers could come to a general agreement on various questions like those of arming and training. Second, one or several smaller Powers, such as Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, or Holland might assume the duty. (Belgium was excluded as being too liable to French influence.) Third, no mandate should be given, but the obligation should be imposed upon the Sultan to maintain at certain points police trained and commanded by foreign officers. The choice of these officers could either be left to the Sultan completely or be confined to certain nationalities, perhaps the smaller Powers. The Chancellor offered to accept any other solution in harmony with the principle of equality and the open door.[1085] On January 24 M. de Lanessan, a French writer, published in the _Siècle_ a solution practically identical with No. 3. The article read in part as follows:

There remains only one admissible solution; to charge the Sultan with the policing of his empire while determining the means over which he should have control and while instituting an international control over the organisation and employment of those means.[1086]

The Chancellor immediately seized upon it with greatest favor and advocated it to President Roosevelt.

The proposal at once called forth vehement opposition in the French press. When Herr von Radowitz mentioned the article to M. Révoil on February 3, the latter replied emphatically that in view of the incompetence of the Sultan the plan was not acceptable.[1087] Thus the issue was joined on the questions of both the bank and the police. In this situation, which had been anticipated by both parties, the French and German governments sought to win the Powers to their respective views.

The German government wished the Austrian, the Italian, and above all the American delegates to mediate in favor of its proposals.[1088] When on January 23 Baron Sternburg explained to Mr. Root, the American secretary of state, the German proposals on the police and asked for the American views, Mr. Root replied that the United States could not participate in any work of Moroccan police but that he personally approved most of proposal No. 3. He said that he would consult the President about the question.[1089]

This reply was eminently satisfactory to Prince Bülow, who immediately urged the American government to mediate upon the basis of M. de Lanessan’s proposals. On January 30 he telegraphed to Washington that the Austrian cabinet had instructed its representative at Algeciras to that effect, that the Italian Foreign Minister had spoken favorably of it, that the Czar had expressed his entire approval of the German position on the open door, that therefore the American government would run no risk in making such a proposal. The time was ripe for it, he stated.[1090] He also sought to influence the President against the French proposal on the bank.[1091]

At Algeciras, however, Herr von Radowitz found that the Italian, American, and Russian delegates all approved the French proposal of February 3 as moderate and practical.[1092] When Count Tattenbach tried on February 3 to persuade Sir Arthur Nicolson to desert France and support Germany, he met with total failure.[1093] As a result Herr von Radowitz again advised his government to compromise.[1094] But in view of the apparently favorable attitudes of the Austrian, Italian, Spanish,[1095] and American governments toward M. de Lanessan’s proposal, Prince Bülow refused.[1096]

Before talking with M. Révoil again, Herr von Radowitz consulted the American, Italian, and Austrian delegates concerning the chances of success of the German proposal on the police. All three declared that France would never accept it, that mediation on the basis of it would be futile. They urged Germany to agree to the French plan, with modifications, in order to prevent a break-up of the Conference.[1097] Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, correspondent for the _London Times_, said the same.[1098] Furthermore, Baron Sternburg reported on February 8 that Mr. Root had promised again that he would consult the President about mediating on the German proposal but that he would not undertake any move unless assured of a definite result. When the Ambassador had listed the Powers in favor of the plan, Mr. Root had asked significantly what was the attitude of Great Britain.[1099]

Continuing to rely upon the mediation of the American delegate and to hope for the support of the American and Italian delegates, the German government instructed Herr von Radowitz on February 9 and 12 to hold to plan No. 3 with the two alternatives of choosing the instructors from some minor Power or of permitting the Sultan free play in the choice of them. In case the three delegates refused to mediate, Herr von Radowitz was to talk directly with M. Révoil. If the French delegate refused both the German proposals, Herr von Radowitz should request him to offer a proposal in keeping with the fundamental principle of the equality of all nations in Morocco. If M. Révoil held to his project of February 3, Herr von Radowitz should return to proposal No. 1, dividing Morocco into sectors each under the charge of a single Power.[1100]

As the three delegates advised Herr von Radowitz to speak directly with the French delegate, he did so on February 13. M. Révoil grudgingly agreed to transmit the following offer to his government:

It is proposed that the conference request the Sultan to undertake the organization of the police. He will have the duty of maintaining in the places determined upon, a troop of police which will be formed and commanded by foreign officers chosen freely by the Sultan. The funds necessary to maintain the troops will be placed at the disposal of the Sultan by the new state bank. The diplomatic corps at Tangier will exercise control over the actions of that organization; a foreign officer of one of the secondary Powers will be charged with the inspection and will report to the diplomatic corps at Tangier. This entire organization will be a tentative one to endure from three to five years.[1101]

The German stand on the police was meeting with the more or less openly expressed disapproval of all the important Powers. Sir Arthur Nicolson had taken the French side from the start.[1102] The pro-French attitude of Count Cassini, the Russian delegate, was confirmed by Count Lamsdorff, who on February 12 expressed to Herr von Schoen, the new German ambassador in St. Petersburg, his and the Czar’s entire approval of the French proposal on the police and advised the German government to accept it.[1103] Even the Austrian government urged the German government to compromise. Count Welsersheimb reported that mediation on the German project No. 3 was futile; and on February 12 Count Goluchowski, Austrian foreign minister, declared to the German Ambassador that the German proposal No. 1 was impracticable and hopeless. Regarding the situation as “rather serious,” the Austrian Foreign Minister stated that “Morocco was not worth a war,” and advised that in case of necessity the Conference be permitted to break up without result. Count Wedel, German ambassador at Vienna, warned the _Wilhelmstrasse_ that because of domestic troubles Austria had no desire to become involved in a conflict.[1104]

Although in danger of becoming a minority of one, the German government hoped to win its point by a show of determination.[1105] It complained vigorously to the new Italian government of the pro-French position taken by its delegate, and endeavored to persuade it to support the German views.[1106] It sought to exert direct pressure upon M. Rouvier by instructing Prince Radolin to inform him that Germany had made concessions on the frontier under the expectation that France would agree to the German terms with regard to the rest of Morocco. If the Conference failed, the Ambassador was to assert, the legal status of 1880 in Morocco would again obtain. The Ambassador should also state to the Premier that if he did not stop the anti-German campaign of the French press “we [Germany] must conclude that M. Rouvier has reconciled himself to the idea of assuming the responsibility for the results of this activity.”[1107] On February 13 the German government, in telegrams to Rome, Washington, Vienna, London, and St. Petersburg, declared as follows:

No reason for a further retreat is evident. The principle of sacrificing one’s own interests merely because they block the way for another Power could lead to such serious consequences that we consider a disruption of the conference as the lesser evil.[1108]

That is, if the Powers wished to prevent a break-up of the assembly, they should persuade France to show more conciliation, for Germany would not recede. A newspaper campaign against the French views on the police accompanied these efforts.[1109]

This defiance did not have the effect desired, for it was based upon an erroneous conception of the determination of France and the views of the Powers. So vehement was the opposition of the French press to the German plan, which was of course known in spite of attempts at secrecy, that the French government could not have accepted it at all. Nor did M. Rouvier have any intention of doing so. The British government, although suspecting that Germany meant to make the Conference fail, was ready to support the French proposals actively by exerting pressure upon the other Powers. On February 14 Sir Edward Grey replied to the defiant German manifesto by arguing to Count Metternich in behalf of the French views.[1110]

In Russia, Count Lamsdorff, who had at the opening of the Conference anticipated a conciliatory policy from Germany, soon became disillusioned, and early in February again promised Russia’s entire support to France. Several of the delegates suspected that while the German representatives realized the necessity of concessions, they were not informing their government of the gravity of the situation.[1111] So Count Lamsdorff advised the French government that the only way in which to make Germany recede was by inducing the other Powers, especially Great Britain, the United States, and Italy to aid Russia in exerting moral pressure upon her and to show her that she was isolated.[1112] He approached the British government with a view to co-operation in favor of France. His friendly expressions were most cordially reciprocated by Sir Edward Grey.[1113] Furthermore, Mr. White and the French and British ambassadors in Washington persuaded President Roosevelt to yield to the French arguments concerning the special interest of France in Morocco, her unique fitness to execute the reforms, her honest desire to maintain the open door. Considering the downfall of M. Delcassé and the acceptance of the Conference as great concessions to Germany, Mr. Roosevelt thought that the latter should now recede in favor of the more practical French proposal about the police. His opinion was confirmed by expressions to the same effect from the Italian, Russian, and even the Austrian governments. The last two urged him to exert his influence with the Emperor for a moderation of the German demands.[1114] The President was coming to suspect Germany of wishing to divide Morocco into sectors and to regard France as the protector of Morocco’s integrity.[1115] He and Mr. Root both thought that Germany, believing herself able to defeat both Great Britain and France since Russia was out of the way, was playing the “big bully”; and the President had visions of the weak German navy’s defeating the British fleet, landing fifty thousand men in England, and taking the island from that guileless Power.[1116] Hence when M. Jusserand asked the President early in February to intervene with the Emperor in favor of the French plan, Mr. Roosevelt agreed to do so.[1117]

With the support of Great Britain, Russia, and the United States, the French government was almost certain of success. When on February 13 and 15 Prince Radolin complained about the tone of the French press and about the French proposal for the police, the French Premier, denying any responsibility for the press, handed the Ambassador the following memorandum:

. . . . If M. Rouvier agreed last July that the solution of the question of the Moroccan police should be international in principle, namely by conference, he was not of the opinion that it would be so in execution. As to the mandate for the police, at no moment has the French Government engaged not to ask for it. . . . . Moreover, it is not a question of organizing the police outside of the coastal towns, and it has always been understood that the principal object would be to guard the security of foreigners. . . . . The proposals ought to be examined at Algeciras, France having agreed at the demand of Germany to submit them to the conference.[1118]

At the same time the French reply to the German proposal of February 13 was ready. Urged by Marquis Visconti Venosta and others, who feared a break-up of the Conference, the French government attempted to harmonize the German plan about the police with the French demands. Then Mr. White transmitted the project to President Roosevelt, who in turn would recommend it to the German government as his own, while M. Révoil would reply directly with a more general statement. Although the latter despaired of any success, this plan was carried out.[1119] On February 16 M. Révoil handed the following memorandum to Herr von Radowitz:

There is no opposition to the organization of the police in the ports by the Sultan, or to the payment of the troops and officers by the Bank of State, or to the short duration of that institution, but under the condition that the foreign officers chosen by His Sherifian Majesty be French and Spanish. The point of the German proposition relative to a surveillance of the execution of that organization may be examined if the question of the nationality of the officers has been agreed upon as indicated above.[1120]

On February 19 Mr. Root, declaring to the German Ambassador that Germany’s persistence in her plan about the police would break up the Conference, proposed the following solution:[1121]

1. That the organization and maintenance of police forces in all the ports be entrusted to the Sultan, the men and officers to be Moors.

2. That the money to maintain the force be furnished by the proposed international bank, the stock of which shall be allotted to all the powers in equal shares (except for some small preference claimed by France, which he [the President] considers immaterial).

3. That duties of instruction, discipline, pay and assisting in management and control be entrusted to French and Spanish officers and non-commissioned officers, to be appointed by the Sultan on presentation of names by their Legations.

That the senior French and Spanish instructing officers report annually to the government of Morocco, and to the government of Italy,[1122] the Mediterranean Power, which shall have the right of inspection and verification, and to demand further reports in behalf of and for the information of the Powers. The expense of such inspection, etc., etc., to be deemed a part of the cost of police maintenance.

4. That full assurances be given by France and Spain, and made obligatory upon all their officers who shall be appointed by the Sultan, for the open door, both as to trade, equal treatment and opportunity in competition for public works and concessions.

These terms, which the French government clung to notwithstanding the opposition of the French press, were unsatisfactory to the German government. At first Prince Bülow refused completely the proposal of February 16, and requested the French delegate to make an offer in keeping with the fundamental principle of the equality for all nations in Morocco.[1123] When the authority of President Roosevelt was added to it, however, the Chancellor receded on some points.[1124] He still held that the Sultan should be permitted to choose the military instructors freely from others besides the French and Spanish nations. But he was willing to limit the nations to those participating in the bank, or, in case France feared that the Sultan might favor German officers, to at least four nationalities. In order to recognize the special rights of France in Morocco, he even agreed that the Sultan might place Tangier and perhaps some other port under the control of France alone; that in the other ports the officers of various nationalities should co-operate. Both Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Root realized that this reply would be totally unacceptable to France, and they refused the German request to mediate on that basis.[1125]

On the question of the bank, the situation was just as bad. Since early in February negotiations on it had been neglected in favor of the more important problem of the police. But to keep the Conference going, the German delegates took it up again on February 19. The next day both theirs and the French plans were submitted to the committee of the whole. The German plan provided that: an equal division of capital among the Powers should be made; the Egyptian mixed codes should be used for the bank; a mixed consular court with the addition of a Moroccan delegate to try cases involving the bank should be established at Tangier; the bank should be supervised by a Conseil de Surveillance composed of the diplomatic representatives at Tangier, and managed by a Conseil d’Administration composed of two delegates from each national group and by a director appointed by the Conseil d’Administration; statutes should be drawn up by this latter body and ratified by the Conseil de Surveillance; customs duties, perhaps with the deduction of the sums necessary for the service of the French loan, should be received by the bank; funds for the police organization and for certain needed public works should be furnished by the bank, which should also be charged with the service of the public debt, especially the French loan and the German advance, and should be the financial agent of the state and have priority right to make loans; the Conseil de Surveillance should have the right to reserve funds necessary for the police organization and for the execution of necessary public works independent of the Sultan’s power, to fix the budget, and to advise the Sultan in deciding on public works.[1126]

The French plan contained the following provisions: the capital should be divided into fifteen parts, of which eleven should be subscribed by financial groups in Germany, Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, Spain, the United States, France, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Russia, and Sweden, with no Power having more than one part; the other four were to be given to the French group of banks that made the Moroccan loan in 1904 in return for relinquishment of the right of preference for making loans to Morocco; the bank was to be directed by a Conseil d’Administration of fifteen members selected by the shareholders, each chosen from the nationality of the subscribing group; a high commissioner selected by the Moroccan government should watch over the bank for the Sultan; the Conseil d’Administration should select the bank officers and determine their powers; an international committee of discount chosen among the chief merchants and bankers of Tangier possessing at least twenty-five shares should be formed for consultative purposes on credit and discount; the bank should be subject to the French law and to the French judicial system; the statutes should be drawn up by a committee chosen from the various subscribing groups and submitted to the stockholders. France wanted the central office of the bank located at Paris, whereas Germany preferred Tangier.[1127]

The main points of difference between the two projects related to the choice of the central office of the bank, the choice of legislation and jurisdiction, the surveillance of the bank, the division of the capital, and the right of preference. The one side complained that the other project would make the bank into a French institution; the other side complained that the opposing project would create, not an economic institution, but a political one aimed at France—that it disregarded recognized French rights and interests and that it was impracticable.[1128] M. Regnault became indignant at the presumption of the German proposal; Count Tattenbach answered him in kind.[1129] The plans were so divergent that their discussion in committee was postponed until March 3 so that time could be given for further direct negotiations.[1130]

Thus, discussion on both questions reached a crisis. Fear of imminent failure pervaded the Conference. The issue was one of victory or defeat in the whole Moroccan episode. To break the deadlock the pro-French Powers again exerted moral pressure on the German government to force its retreat.[1131]

When the French reply on the police was made to Germany, the Russian government approved it to the German authorities. Count Lamsdorff declared frankly to Herr von Schoen on February 19 his belief that Germany would be isolated in her refusal of the French proposals and that if the Conference broke up she would be blamed, particularly in Russia, for the continuation of the political and economic tension in Europe. If the Björkö ideal were to be realized, he said, France and Germany must become friends.[1132]

On February 20, at French request, Count Witte urged the German government and Emperor William personally to permit a speedy settlement of the Moroccan affair. Until then, he argued, the Continental grouping could not be formed nor could Russia obtain the loan which she so greatly needed for suppressing the revolution.[1133] The German government replied that if Russia wanted the loan quickly, she should advise the French government to be more conciliatory.[1134] On February 23 occurred another conversation between Herr von Schoen and Count Lamsdorff, whose assertions the Ambassador reported as follows:

It is difficult to understand why we [Germany] defend so obstinately an international right on the police question at the Conference which all other Powers, in view of the practical solution offered by the French, are ready to give up. The pessimistic impression has spread throughout the Conference that we aim to frustrate an understanding.

The results of a failure would be incalculable. In France, where feelings are already very much excited and M. Rouvier would be accused of too great conciliation, a crisis with the downfall of M. Rouvier and his replacement by an intransigent person could scarcely be avoided. The continued anarchy in Morocco might bring forth bellicose complications at any moment, in which case England would certainly enter on France’s side while Russia would remain an inactive witness, but at the worst would be affected sympathetically. A European war would enkindle new revolutionary outbreaks which would also lead to difficult times for Germany. But the worst would be that the foundation for the peace program agreed upon by the two monarchs would be destroyed. . . . .

Denying that the outlook was so pessimistic, Herr von Schoen replied that even though the addition of the third Power to the Björkö accord might have to be postponed, that treaty would remain valid; whereupon Count Lamsdorff answered that the Dual Alliance still held good, that if France became involved in a war with Germany, the Björkö accord would collapse.[1135]

When this warning had no apparent effect, Count Lamsdorff hesitated to use the Czar’s influence with the German Emperor.[1136] But as a final effort he had an article published on March 2 in the semiofficial journal, _L’Etat russe_, denouncing the German policy at the Conference and upholding the French.[1137]

Great Britain also gave her fullest support to the French, not only in Algeciras and London, but in the various capitals of the other Powers. In upholding the French proposal to Count Metternich on February 19 the British Minister repeated his belief that British public opinion would point the way to active support of France in case of a war with Germany and would thus force the postponement of an Anglo-German _rapprochement_. The Ambassador answered that if Germany had to give in to every French pretension which arose from the Entente Cordiale in order to gain British friendship, he feared that the price was too high. The German people would come inevitably to look upon the British as their chief enemy. Sir Edward Grey assured him, however, that if the Moroccan affair were settled permanently, he would carry out his promise to work for a _rapprochement_.[1138] He also kept in close touch with the Russian government on Moroccan affairs. While refusing on February 22 Count Lamsdorff’s suggestion to intervene in Berlin in favor of France, he urged Russia to do so.[1139]

The British Foreign Secretary was pessimistic over the outlook for the Conference. He was especially desirous for the onus of the disruption not to rest upon France. To prevent that he was even willing for the Moroccan police to be temporarily organized under the Sultan by officers taken from a neutral minor Power with a French officer selected by the French government in general control. But he hesitated to suggest this solution to France for fear of hurting the Entente Cordiale.[1140] On February 20 he recorded his reactions to the situation as follows:

If the Conference breaks up without result the situation will be very dangerous. Germany will endeavour to establish her influence in Morocco at the expense of France. France to counteract this or even simply to protect herself and a neighbour from the state of disturbance, which is now chronic in Morocco, will be driven to take action in Morocco, which Germany may make a _casus belli_.

If there is war between France and Germany it will be very difficult for us to keep out of it. The _Entente_ and still more the constant and emphatic demonstrations of affection . . . . have created in France a belief that we should support her in war. . . . . If this expectation is disappointed the French will never forgive us.

There would also I think be a general feeling in every country that we had behaved meanly and left France in the lurch. The United States would despise us, Russia would not think it worth while to make a friendly arrangement with us about Asia, Japan would prepare to re-insure herself elsewhere, we should be left without a friend and without the power of making a friend and Germany would take some pleasure, after what has passed, in exploiting the whole situation to our disadvantage, very likely by stirring up trouble through the Sultan of Turkey in Egypt. As a minor matter the position of any Foreign Secretary here, who had made it an object to maintain the _entente_ with France, would become intolerable.

On the other hand the prospect of a European War and of our being involved in it is horrible.

I propose therefore, if unpleasant symptoms develop after the Conference is over, to tell the French Ambassador that a great effort and if need be some sacrifice should in our opinion be made to avoid war. To do this we should have to find out what compensation Germany would ask or accept as the price of her recognition of the French claims in Morocco. There is also a point about Egypt, which might be worked in on our behalf. I should myself be in favour of allowing Germany a port or coaling station, if that would ensure peace; but it would be necessary to consult the Admiralty about this, and to find out whether the French would entertain the idea, and if so what port?

The real objection to the course proposed is that the French may think it pusillanimous and a poor result of the _Entente_. I should have to risk this. I hope the French would recognize that in a war with Germany our liabilities would be much less than theirs. We should risk little or nothing on land, and at sea we might shut the German fleet up in Kiel and keep it there without losing a ship or a man or even firing a shot. The French would have a life and death struggle and that expenditure of blood and treasure with a doubtful issue. They ought therefore not to think it pusillanimous on our part to wish to avoid a war in which our danger was so much less than theirs.

I have also a further point of view. The door is being kept open by us for a _rapprochement_ with Russia; there is at least a prospect that when Russia is re-established we shall find ourselves on good terms with her. An _entente_ between Russia, France and ourselves would be absolutely secure. If it is necessary to check Germany it could then be done. The present is the most unfavourable moment for attempting to check her. Is it not a grave mistake, if there must be a quarrel with Germany for France or ourselves to let Germany choose the moment, which best suits her.

There is a possibility that war may come before these suggestions of mine can be developed in diplomacy. If so it will only be because Germany has made up her mind that she wants war and intends to have it anyhow, which I do not believe is the case. But I think we ought in our minds to face the question now, whether we can keep out of war, if war breaks out between France and Germany. The more I review the situation the more it appears to me that we cannot, without losing our good name and our friends and wrecking our policy and position in the world.[1141]

Thus Sir Edward Grey intended to do his utmost to preserve peace even at the risk of antagonizing France. He desired to postpone the Moroccan settlement if necessary until the Anglo-Russian entente could be consummated, believing that then France would be in a far stronger position with reference to Germany. But if war did arise, he was determined to throw his entire influence in favor of active participation.[1142]

In Rome, M. Barrère, loyally seconded by Sir Edwin Egerton, endeavored to interpret the Franco-Italian accords in such a way as to induce the Italian government to take the French side openly in case of a vote at the Conference. The Italian government refused. It also refused to support Germany, and left matters in the hands of its delegate.[1143]

Similarly, the French and British representatives co-operated to prevent Spain, somewhat disgruntled over the Moroccan accords, from refusing to live up to its obligations. The Spanish government promised complete loyalty. But when it appeared that the conference would fail, the Spanish government felt that as host it should endeavor to prevent that issue. On February 19 the Duke of Almodovar read to Mr. Révoil a note in which he said that for the sake of a settlement Spain was willing to accept the following plan as a sort of truce: The police should be organized by the Sultan under the control of the diplomatic corps for three years; the instructors should be exclusively Moroccan except at Tetouan, where they should be Spanish, and at Oudjda, where they should be French; France and Spain might renew their claims after the three years if they saw fit.[1144]

Horrified at the idea, the Anglo-French combination immediately busied itself to bring Spain back into line. At Madrid the British and French representatives informed the foreign office that if Spain deserted her friends the Anglo-French opposition to the German projects would continue anyway. They argued that a break-up of the Conference with the maintenance of the Franco-Spanish accords was preferable to the success of the Conference through the ruin of those accords, in which lay their sole guaranty for the morrow. M. Ojeda, acting minister of foreign affairs, acknowledged to the British representative that “he hated France and French influence in Morocco, and that he had no confidence in and personal dislike for French Ambassador,” but he added that “he would act faithfully in accordance with Spain’s engagements, although he disliked them.” M. Moret, the Spanish premier, also protested his loyalty to the accords. The Duke of Almodovar was instructed to abstain in the future from all initiative not previously concerted with his French colleague.[1145] To prevent any bad feelings from this episode, the British and French governments thanked Spain for her loyalty. Thus the danger from Spain was averted.[1146]

M. Rouvier consulted the smaller governments represented at the Conference with a view to obtaining their open support in case matters were forced to a vote. But they remained neutral.[1147]

The French government, again sustained by Great Britain,[1148] even sought to influence Austria in its favor, and with some success. Finding Count Goluchowski of the opinion that after France’s concessions on February 3 and 16 Germany should show moderation, the French Ambassador hinted discreetly that the Foreign Minister speak to the German government to that effect.[1149] Count Goluchowski, who on February 14 had suggested a compromise to the German government very similar to the French offer of February 16, urged it to accept the offer and to seek compensation in the settlement of the bank question. Both the American and the Italian delegates approved it, he argued, and he predicted that if the Conference broke up Germany would be blamed.[1150] On February 23 Emperor Francis Joseph himself intervened. Calling the German Ambassador to him, he said that Austria would act with Germany at the Conference, but that according to all reports from Algeciras they would be isolated in case of a vote. Such an isolation would be unpleasant for both Powers, but far graver, he said, was the possibility that out of a failure of the Conference might develop a new grouping of the Powers separating Russia from the two monarchies and associating her with Great Britain and France. He declared that it was necessary to avoid that turn.[1151]

The French party at the Conference knew that Germany was isolated, that even her ally, Austria, opposed her policy.[1152] On February 26 M. Révoil, refusing to make any further proposal, asserted to the German delegates: “If the Conference recognizes the utility of new guarantees, we will not refuse to examine them. It belongs to the Conference . . . . to determine the solution.” In other words, he told Germany that, having demanded the Conference, she might permit it to settle the matter.[1153] He and Sir Arthur Nicolson were devising some means by which a rupture of the Conference should not occur over the bank question and by which the responsibility for a rupture should not fall on France and Great Britain. The issue on the bank was not as clear cut as on the police, and public opinion would not understand why financial differences could not be harmonized. So the two men planned to bring the police question up first for decision. They did not favor taking a formal vote on that matter, as Count Lamsdorff suggested,[1154] for they perceived that the American, Italian, Dutch, Belgian, and Swedish delegates would very probably not vote. But they intended in some way to make plain to Germany the preference of the Conference for the French police proposal. Then if Germany remained adamantine, she would receive the blame for the break-up of the assembly.[1155]

The opportunity came on March 3. During the discussion of the bank in the official session of the Conference, Germany’s views were supported solely by Austria and Morocco and were opposed, for the first time, by a firm British-French-Spanish-Russian group.[1156] That same day, on the motion of Sir Arthur Nicolson and with the aid of the Duke of Almodovar, the Conference voted to take up the question of the police on February 5 instead of that of the bank. The German and Austrian delegates alone opposed the motion, even the Italian representative siding openly against them.[1157] At the session on March 5 Germany was again isolated. Her policy in regard to the police was not even defended by Austria, while the French plan was openly approved by Great Britain, Russia, Spain, and Portugal.[1158]

All the delegates were pessimistic. As direct negotiations had proved futile, M. Révoil and Sir Arthur Nicolson both expected that the antagonism would come to a head at the next session and the Conference would break up.[1159] Herr von Radowitz reported to his government that agreement was impossible if Germany held to her present terms, for France would not recede, and that the other representatives, anxious to conclude the Conference, were in favor of the French police proposal. Even Count Tattenbach thought that his government was too obstinate.[1160] In Berlin, however, Herr von Holstein, misjudging the French feeling, planned to meet the crisis by disregarding the Conference and making a direct temporary agreement with the French government. The visit to Berlin of Baron de Courcel, former ambassador at Berlin, on February 20-22, afforded him the opportunity to propose the following terms: In regard to the police the two governments should make a temporary settlement for four or five years; France, in consideration of her special interests in Morocco, should be given one port to police alone, while officers in equal numbers of the various nationalities, including French and German, should co-operate in each of the other seven ports; in the bank France should also be given a slight advantage. Let France accept this internationalization for the time being, he said, and in a few years she and Germany could come to a direct permanent settlement of the Moroccan question by which Germany, in return for concessions elsewhere, would leave the land entirely to France. These concessions he declared to be the utmost that Germany would make; she preferred to let the Conference disband rather than recede further. Baron de Courcel seemed favorable to the plan; but, on March 6, M. Rouvier refused to consider it or any other direct negotiations with Germany.[1161] So that channel was definitely closed.

While this effort was being made, Prince Bülow took personal charge of all the details concerning the Moroccan affair.[1162] The Chancellor had no idea of permitting a disruption of the Conference,[1163] and began to consider a proposal suggested by the Austrian delegate on February 26 for a way out. In its final form this project provided that the organization of police in Tangier, Saffi, Rabat, and Tetouan should be intrusted to the French; in Mogador, Larache, and Mazagan to the Spanish; in Casablanca to the command of a Swiss or Dutch officer with powers of inspection over all the police. It further proposed that this inspector should report to the diplomatic corps at Tangier, which should exercise general control over the reorganization of the police. Herr von Radowitz, Count Welsersheimb, and Marquis Visconti Venosta all declared this to be the least that the French would accept.[1164] The German government endeavored first to have Austria and Italy mediate on the basis of the plan outlined to Baron de Courcel;[1165] but on March 4 Count Goluchowski, the Austrian foreign minister, regarding the step as futile, refused to do so. Instead he urged that either Count Welsersheimb’s project be accepted _in toto_ or that the selection of officers be left to the Sultan with the understanding that he choose only French and Spanish ones.[1166] From Italy also came a negative response.[1167] When Count Tattenbach himself favored the Austrian plan, the Chancellor accepted it on March 6 with the proviso that the commander at Casablanca choose his officers from other nationalities than French and Spanish, and also that France accede to the German demands on the bank. Then the Chancellor sought to obtain a combined Austro-Italian mediation for the plan.[1168]

On March 8 Count Welsersheimb’s project and the French plan of February 16 were formally introduced in the Conference.[1169] On March 10 both were referred to the committee for formulation on a motion by Herr von Radowitz, who said:

It seems to me that accord ought to be reached on the basis of the two projects. . . . . That of the French delegation certainly contains proposals which deserve the most serious examination. They ought to be completed by those of the Austro-Hungarian project.[1170]

The Austro-German proposal was a welcome surprise to the Conference, which recognized it as a great concession. Sir Arthur Nicolson found that “members of the Conference, with the exception of French and Spanish, are unanimous in favour of” it. He as well as the other delegates did not hesitate to inform M. Révoil frankly of this view. In Algeciras, London, and Paris the British government on March 9-10 stated to the French authorities that Germany’s concessions “had brought an agreement so near that it would not do to let the Conference break up now without a settlement.” “I would,” said Sir Arthur Nicolson to M. Révoil, “support him [M. Révoil] to the best of my ability in whatever course he might take, but I must tell him that in the event of the Conference ending in a failure we should be placed in an exceedingly false position with all the public feeling of Europe against us.”[1171] Sir Edward Grey thought that “Germany has conceded the substance and it would be a great pity, if France sacrificed the substance to the shadow.”[1172]

M. Révoil, whose views were also valid for the Spanish delegates, was totally unwilling to accept the Austrian proposal. He was handicapped by the unexpected fall of the French government on March 7 over a minor question concerning relations with the church. A week before the French Premier would have accepted the Spanish proposal of February 19 as a means of last resort.[1173] Now out of power, though remaining at the foreign office until the new government was formed, M. Rouvier of course could not make concessions even had he so desired. Staunchly supported by the French press, which on March 13 published the instructions to M. Révoil,[1174] he and the French delegate demanded the following modifications in the Austrian plan:

The police instructors at Casa Blanca to be, like at the other seven ports, French or Spanish.

Distribution of ports to French or Spanish instructors to be a matter for agreement between French and Spanish Gov[ernmen]ts. The Inspector General to be a subject of neutral state and to have powers of inspection at all eight ports without right to command or give orders to French and Spanish instructors, and to make his reports to the Sultan of Morocco and not to the diplomatic body at Tangier.

He also preferred as inspector a Swiss or, even better, a Dane to a Dutchman for fear the latter might be too much under German influence.[1175]

Both MM. Rouvier and Révoil believed that Germany would recede on these points, for on about March 8 the Prince of Monaco arrived in Paris from Berlin with a message for M. Rouvier from Prince Bülow to the effect that Germany would accept a French and Spanish police “under the most discreet control of an officer from a lesser Power.”[1176] The message was undoubtedly misleading and the French hope unjustified.[1177] When Marquis Visconti Venosta, Mr. White, and Sir Arthur Nicolson, at M. Révoil’s request, asked the German delegates March 9, 10, whether they would give way, the latter assured them that Germany had spoken her last word, that “the establishment of the inspector at a port as instructor was a _sine qua non_ condition.”[1178]

M. Révoil was “greatly disappointed” and “a little unstrung.” He told Sir Arthur Nicolson that his government would not accept such a solution. “He said with much bitterness that the Germans had internationalized the finances, and they now intended to introduce the principle throughout Morocco. France would leave the Conference having yielded everything and gained nothing.” His chief concern was that if France were forced to accept the Austrian plan, “the outcry which would be raised against it in France might be utilized to weaken the Anglo- French understanding.” Sir Arthur Nicolson replied that he “would always support him [M. Révoil], but I had given warnings as a friend should.” And Sir Arthur added “that he must face the situation as it stood, and that there could be no question of breaking down the Conference on that point, and at a moment when a favourable end was so nearly reached.”[1179]

In Paris, M. Rouvier

rather demurred [to the British Ambassador] to the supposition that the conference was so favourably impressed by the Austrian scheme. He said that France still counted on her side Spain, England, Russia, Portugal, and others had only been gained over by the German Delegates having persuaded them that Germany would make no further concessions.[1180]

Mr. Eyre Crowe was alarmed for the Entente Cordiale; he urged the greatest caution in advising France to recede. But Sir Edward Grey on March 12 repeated to M. Cambon that in his opinion France “should accept the Swiss at Casa Blanca rather than let the Conference break up.”[1181]