The revolts in Italy, in Spain, and in the Spanish-American colonies continued, and the breach between Great Britain and the reactionary Powers became wider and wider. In 1822 the Congress of Verona was held, and Great Britain finally broke away from the Quintuple Alliance and sought the support of America, one result of which was the Monroe Doctrine. The Revolution of 1830 separated France from the three reactionary Powers, and the Quintuple Alliance was thus reduced to a Triple Alliance of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, practically identical with the Holy Alliance, in which form it continued until the revolutions of 1848.16 -The Quadruple Alliance, aided perhaps by the vivid memory of the Napoleonic Wars, kept the peace for a generation. It failed to accomplish its purposes for several reasons, among which may be noted the following: (1) Russia, Austria, and Prussia wanted to use their combined power to repress liberalism wherever it appeared. (2) Although in the Treaty of Vienna an attempt was made to recognize national aspirations (with very limited success), there was 16 Cf. C. D. Hazen, Europe Since 1815, Chaps. IV, V, VIII; W. A. Phillips, Modern Europe, 1815-99; A. F. Pollard, The League of Nations in History, pp. 10-11. not as yet on the part of Russia, Austria, and Prussia any real participation of the people in the governments. (3) Great Britain, with her liberal tendencies, did not want a complete federation with the three great autocratic Powers. (4) Although there was a desire to avoid future war on the part of the generation that had seen twenty years of Napoleonic Wars, there is no real evidence that either the sovereigns or the people of the various States wanted to surrender any essential portion of their independence in order to form a federative system. They were willing to make agreements as to what they should do if war should come, but they were not willing or ready to change substantially their daily life to prevent the coming of war. A striking exception to this last statement, however, must be noted. Article V of the first Treaty of Paris made provision for the navigation of the Rhine and looked forward to a continuance of international management of the Rhine and other rivers in the following expression: The future Congress, with a view to facilitate the communications between nations, and continually to render them less strangers to one another, shall likewise examine and determine in what manner the above provisions can be extended to other rivers which, in their navigable course, separate or traverse different States.17 Most of the high-sounding expressions of the vacillating Alexander are now as words written upon the sand. Most of the resolutions of the various congresses have come to nothing. Article V of the Treaty of Paris, however, which dealt with a definite, concrete thing, touching the daily lives of people living and trading upon an international river, gave form to a new principle of international cooperation by which men thereafter were able to live together more harmoniously. BIBLIOGRAPHY W. A. PHILLIPS, The Confederation of Europe. The Correspondence, Despatches, and Other Papers of Viscount Castlereagh, edited by C. W. Vane. A. F. POLLARD, The League of Nations in History. J. H. ROSE, William Pitt and National Revival; William Pitt and the Great War. C. D. HAZEN, Europe Since 1815, Chap. I. J. S. BASSETT, The Lost Fruits of Waterloo. 17 W. A. Phillips, The Confederation of Europe, p. 91. IV THE JURISTS, THE STATESMEN, AND THE DIPLOMATISTS F REDERICK W. HOLLS, a representative of the United States at the first Hague Conference, makes the following comment upon the relation of the Hague Conference to what had gone before: When the conference was first called its connection with the intellectual, scientific, and philosophic aspirations for universal and eternal peace was emphasized by innumerable articles and dissertations containing a great display of erudition and research. It seemed difficult even for the daily papers to discuss the rescript of the Emperor of Russia without allusions to the "Great Plan" of Henry IV and Sully, the Essay of William Penn, the great work of the Abbé St. Pierre, and the famous pamphlet of Kant on "Eternal Peace." It cannot be denied that this view had a certain justification, but it wholly failed to grasp an essential characteristic of the Peace Conference, to wit: its diplomatic nature. The gathering at The Hague was the lineal descendant, so to speak, not of the innumerable Peace Congresses held in various quarters of the globe, but of the diplomatic assemblies called for the purpose of solving a present problem, and of furnishing guarantees, more or less permanent, for peace between the Powers represented-beginning with the Conferences of Münster and Osnabrück in 1648, including those of Utrecht in 1713, of Paris in 1763, and, above all, the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and that of Berlin in 1878.1 The diplomatists, during the war, have been somewhat discredited. When a great catastrophe occurs and the handling of affairs which led up to the catastrophe has been under the direction of particular persons, it is in human nature to blame the catastrophe upon them. The critics can easily see the failures; they cannot readily perceive the difficulties which men were unable to overcome. The war that the diplomatists were unable to avert has been upon us for more than four years; the wars that they have succeeded in averting we know very little about. But whether we praise them or blame them, we must have some knowledge of the important part they have taken in the development of what we know as international law. What do we mean when we speak of "international law"? It has been denied that there 1 Frederick W. Holls, The Peace Conference at The Hague, p. 351. |