under the pressure of a threatened rising of the people, merely confirms thereby that he has so far kept his people in bondage. The robber who was unable to thrust his booty in his pocket does not cease to be a robber. The murderer remains a murderer, if he takes upon himself a solemn vow to refrain from murder in future.

It is only with the conclusion of peace without that there will begin our war within. It is only when arms are laid down as against the outer enemy, that we shall begin to arm against the internal enemy. Not until the debit account is closed will we-we Germans-present the account to our debtors.

Then, indeed, they will be called upon to pay-to pay, not with concessions and petty grants, not with the cheap coin of repentance and self-confession, not with trivial improvements here and trivial embellishments there. No, but to pay in their own person, payer de sa personne-to be punished and make atonement in their bodies and in their life, in wealth and in blood, in their children and children's children.

"Where there is no punishment, there are no guilty." May the blood of the murdered be upon the heads of their murderers! An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!

Such is the requirement of earthly, such the requirement of heavenly justice.

Where, however, are the wise in Germany who recognise this? Where are the strong who will carry it through? "When will the saviour come into this country?"

When will the man of action appear, who will free this brave and sturdy people from a dynasty which has survived its day, which has forfeited its princely rights, and indeed its life, by its inexpiable crime?

Ended in the thirty-eighth month of the war.
End of September, 1917.

THE END.

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE

"Of Prince Lichnowsky in London-the only one among our Ambassadors-we must say this in his honour, that he earnestly desired peace, and that he was only the innocent victim of those above him." Such was the judgment formed in the beginning of 1915 by the author of J'accuse regarding the part played by the German Ambassador in London in the events leading to the outbreak of war. In the first volume of The Crime (pages 219, 220) there is a passage bearing on the same point which it may not be without interest to recall : "Although I possess no authentic information on the point, I am convinced merely on the study of the documentary evidence that if Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador, could be asked on oath whether Sir Edward Grey had from the beginning to the end of the conflict sincerely desired and striven for peace, he would emphatically answer the question in the affirmative.”

Since The Crime was completed Prince Lichnowsky's answer to this question has been given to the world sooner than could have been expected, and indeed sooner than the late Ambassador in London himself intended. His memorandum, now published under the title My Mission to London, 1912-14,1 was written in August, 1916, and distributed in confidence to a few friends of the author. Owing to the accident that one copy passed beyond the circle for whom the memorandum was originally intended, a Swedish paper was in a position to publish extracts in March of this year; since then the whole memorandum has been given to the public and has become widely known as one of the most important documents bearing on the origin of the war. In view of the fact that the author of The Crime was precluded from refer

'Cassell & Co.

ring to any events after September, 1917, it appears desirable to consider very briefly the bearing of Lichnowsky's revelations on the conclusions arrived at in the present work.

Not the least important feature of Lichnowsky's memorandum is to be found in the fact that it is not primarily or essentially designed to furnish an account of the immediate antecedents of the war in so far as they were within the knowledge of the author. The immediate object is to show the folly of Germany in adhering to what Lichnowsky calls the "insane Triple Alliance policy," which he elsewhere describes as "a return to the days of the Holy Roman Empire and the mistakes of the Hohenstaufens and Habsburgs." Lichnowsky's purpose in writing is to show that Germany has not been pursuing her own true interests in subordinating her policy to that of Austria, and it is merely as an illustration of this general thesis that he discusses the events of 1914.

With regard to the events immediately leading to the war, Lichnowsky's evidence contains little that was not previously known or at least inferred; it is nevertheless of the highest importance that a witness so favourably placed for forming an authoritative judgment should arise in so unexpected a quarter to add his testimony to the efforts made by the Entente countries to preserve peace during the critical days. Lichnowsky, as he himself tells us, and as indeed is obvious on the published documents, was kept by the authorities in Berlin in ignorance on many matters on which he had a right to be informed. Suspected of "Austrophobia," he was not instructed regarding events in Vienna and the views there entertained, and consequently on learning of the assassination of the Archduke he attached no great political importance to the occurrence. Indeed, on arriving in Berlin at the end of June he impressed on an incredulous Chancellor the satisfactory nature of Germany's foreign relations, emphasising a truth, familiar to Bernhardi, that Russia had no interest in attacking Germany, and that both England and France wanted peace. It was while passing through Berlin on his return to London that Lichnowsky appears to have received the first intimation of the approaching catastrophe, although even then

he underestimated the importance of the intimation that Austria intended "to put an end to an impossible situation." According to Lichnowsky, the decisive conference was held at Potsdam on July 5th, when Austria's action was sanctioned, and the possibility that war with Russia might result was regarded as a contingency which would do "no harm."

On his return to London, Lichnowsky soon experienced the acute embarrassment involved in being the official representative of a policy of which he personally disapproved. He received instructions to induce the Press in this country to adopt a friendly attitude "should Austria administer the coup de grâce to the Great Serbian movement, and to use his influence to prevent public opinion becoming hostile to Austria." The possibility of achieving success on these lines appeared so remote that Prince Lichnowsky felt impelled to utter an urgent warning, not only on the immediate subject of his instructions, but against the whole plan, which he described as "adventurous and dangerous."

The answer received from Herr von Jagow furnishes ample confirmation of the analysis given in J'accuse and The Crime of the German attitude towards the possible consequences of the Austrian Ultimatum. Russia, it was said, was not ready; the more firmly Germany took sides with Austria, the more would Russia give way. Austria was already accusing Germany of weakness, and therefore Germany dared not leave her in the lurch. On the other hand, public opinion in Russia was becoming more and more anti-German, “so we must just risk it."

Confronted with the revealed recklessness of official German policy, Prince Lichnowsky now saw the only possible hope of salvation in British mediation, knowing how great was Sir E. Grey's influence in Petrograd, and that this influence would be used there to promote a peaceful solution. He therefore turned to the British Minister and requested him in confidence to counsel moderation in Russia.

Prince Lichnowsky strongly supports the view that the Serbian reply, the moderation of which he attributes to the British efforts, was such that it should have been an easy

matter to arrive at a solution of the existing difficulties. In words which are almost identical with those of the author of The Crime he says: "It would have been an easy matter for us to find an acceptable formula for the points at issue. . . . Given good will everything could have been settled at one or two sittings." Lichnowsky therefore strongly supported Grey's Conference-proposal, but without success. He was told that he had to work for "the localisation of the conflict." It is almost unnecessary to dwell on a point frequently emphasised in the course of this work, namely, that Germany's desire at this stage for a "localisation" of the conflict implies that she had already determined on a Continental war, and was at the most anxious not to add Britain to the number of her enemies.

Prince Lichnowsky's views on the later stages of the crisis do not differ from those elaborated in the first volume of The Crime. He mentions Sir E. Grey's request to Germany to submit an alternative proposal, but on this his only comment is that "we insisted on war." He justifies the growing impression that Germany wanted war under any circumstances, since her attitude on a question which did not directly concern her was not capable of any other interpretation. He summarises the many efforts made to avert catastrophe, all unavailing: "Berlin persisted; Serbia must be massacred."

It is not without interest to compare the points in the indictment against Germany as summarised on pages 243-245 of J'accuse with Lichnowsky's brief summary on the question of responsibility:

"1. We encouraged Count Berchtold to attack Serbia, although German interests were not involved and the danger of a world-war must have been known to us. Whether we were aware of the wording of the Ultimatum is completely immaterial.

“2. During the time between the 23rd and 30th July, 1914, when M. Sazonof emphatically declared that he would not tolerate any attack on Serbia, we rejected the British proposals of mediation, although Serbia, under Russian and British pressure, had accepted almost the whole of the