and oftentimes with me. His scheme was essentially economical, and consisted in the grouping together of all the Continental Powers in a federative customs union. Its peculiarity lay in the elimination of Britain unless and until the Channel Tunnel, for the construction of which Baron d'Erlanger has since worked so hard, should be built and opened. Witte held that England's geographical position which separates her from the mainland also disqualifies her for membership of the European Federation. She was then a European kingdom with overseas colonies and dominions. To-day she is deemed to be an intercontinental States Union, not a European Great Power. Moreover, she no longer, it is said, dominates her overseas empire-she but presides over it. But her interest in the peace of Europe is greater now than ever, because the security which her insularity once bestowed upon her has been shattered since the advent of the airship. This loss may still be made good politically by means of a friendly understanding with the European Federation, but not militarily by air defences against it. The elimination of the British Empire from the European States Union, it is urged, is inspired by no unfriendly motives. Its complement would be a treaty of friendship and commerce, in the interests of both. All that, however, is by the way. The insurmountable obstacle that Witte encountered lay in the rooted ill-feeling between Germany and France, and to-day that obstacle is more formidable than ever.

The barriers which thus continually keep the nations apart are primarily political. If Europe were a federation, as is the North American Republic, with no internal lets to trade or traffic and therefore no temptation to expansion, the danger of a sanguinary conflict must shrink so considerably that disarmament would impose itself as a peremptory corollary. The gain accruing from this measure in money, men, and cultural acquisitions, to each member of the federation and to the entire Continent, would be incalculable. And this consummation, marking the penultimate step towards a veritable league of nations, would usher in the dawn of a new

* A most interesting talk which he had with Kaiser Wilhelm II is given on pp. 342-347 of the Eclipse of Russia,' by E. J. Dillon. Dent, 1918.

.

era. Thus to combine in a political synthesis national Sovereignty with close international co-operation, is the one and only efficacious cure for the ills from which the human race is suffering.

Some of the far-resonant events of the reign of Tsar Nicholas II-the two Hague Conferences, for instancewere mistakenly deemed to foretoken the advent of a much larger federation than that projected by Witte. Enthusiasts fancied that by a single bound a system of world-States might be established without passing through the intermediate stage of a united Europe. To-day the same delusion is harboured by the apostles and officials of the League of Nations-mass-suggestion being one of the characteristics of our epoch. Belief in that wellmeaning body is fraught with danger to Europe, by conferring a false sense of security.

If the welding together of the principal European peoples was at once urgent and difficult in pre-war days, it has become more necessary and less feasible since peace on earth was proclaimed at Versailles, Lausanne, and elsewhere. Before the world-war Europe was made up of twenty-six sovereign States. The Peace-makers raised the number to thirty-eight, twelve of which are rickety entities, lacking vital sap and dependent for their existence on the tolerance and good nature of their neighbours. It has been computed that two-thirds of our Continent consist of independent countries each one containing fewer inhabitants than New York. Yet most of these and nearly all the others are arrogant, greedy, jealous, and vindictive, and what with their customsbarriers, passport regulations, and police byelaws they have turned international commerce into a fiery ordeal and private travel into a series of mishaps and humiliations.

This multiplication of sovereign realms means a large addition to the forces working to bring about another world-conflict. Chauvinism and its virulent spirit-rife among most of them-overmatch the bent towards federation. Suspicion, jealousy, hatred, and intrigue poison intercourse between people and people. A large section of the press is on the side of militarism. History itself deliberately furthers and spreads the causes of disintegration and fortifies political prejudice;

and at present the people of Europe are further removed from neighbourly coalition and nearer to an irreparable catastrophe than twenty years ago. True, the autocracies have been weeded out, and to-day all strictly European * States rejoice in a common democratic denominator. But although the War and the Peace thus suppressed one of the chief obstacles to European federation they also made short work of many of the conditions which had furthered the process of cohesion. Take Austria as an instance. Down to the year 1914 that monarchy held together without undue violence eleven different nationalities. Throughout that vast extent of territory trade, commerce, and private journeys were untrammelled. To-day the hindrances, fees, and formalities are numerous, irritating, and needless. For that country of 12,000 square miles is now parcelled out into seven independent republics, each one proud of its history, buoyed up by faith in its mission, jealous of its neighbours, impatient of criticism, and conscientiously making ready for the coming war.

One might aptly describe the present situation by saying that whereas world conditions render the immediate federation of European peoples imperatively indispensable, the internal relations produced by the Peace Treaty make it virtually impossible. Co-operation and association are, as we saw, the general characteristics of progressive humanity as a whole. Competition and self-defence under the harsh conditions which a much larger population, the conquest of space, rapidity of communications, and the accumulation of capital have brought about, require more powerful groups of federated peoples, settled peace, confidence in its stability, and deliverance from the crushing burden of taxation for armaments. Those are the terms of the problem that confronts us. Whether or no it be possible to solve it satisfactorily is a different matter: the task set by circumstance is just that and no other. If Europe is willing-there is no doubt that she is able to fulfil those conditions, all may yet be well. If not, then the outcome is more certain and will be hardly less tragical than was the fate of Belshazzar's kingdom after the

Russia is no longer one.

fiery writing had appeared on the wall of his banqueting chamber.

No nation can stand by itself and hold its own in the present Titantic struggle for existence any more than a private individual can lead the 'simple life' and dispense with the services of his fellows. Latter-day civilisation like Briareus has a hundred hands by which it seizes and fastens on persons and nations. We work through syndicates and trusts, and think in continents and billions. The contemporary European community has to compete not with another like community on terms of approximate equality, but with a whole continent such as the United States or with an international group of realms in different continents like the British Empire. Those huge concerns find capital, labour, and raw stuffs within their own boundaries and therefore enjoy enormous advantages which the solitary European republic does not possess. A single continental State, therefore, stands no chance against an aggressor say of the size, situation, and quasi-religious fanaticism of Bolshevist Russia or against a financial rival like the United States. In a word, Europe, as the War and the Peace have made it, offers to outside adversaries a spectacle and a temptation similar to those which Poland presented to her greedy neighbours in the last third of the 18th century.

To-day the European States-system rests on the quicksands of national selfishness and personal ambitions. That is the negative side of the Versailles arrangement. Responsibility for the world-war is still under discussion. Responsibility for the peace is clear and unquestionable. But it would be unfair to blame the Peace Delegates too severely. They are answerable only for a single lapse having been taught that experience, knowledge, tact, and sound judgment are of the essence of statesmanship, they set themselves to prove the contrary-and failed. They held that if Germany and Austria, whom they set down as the authors of the world-war, were reduced to impotence an era of settled peace and lighter financial burdens would begin. Accordingly they gave those two Powers their quietus. And now? Is peace settled? Have war preparations relaxed? Is taxation lighter? None of these anticipations has been fulfilled.

Why? Because the Peace Treaties have engendered more grievances in the shape of the unfair allotment of territories and greater hardship and injustice in the treatment of minorities, and therefore made the States and nationalities more restless and peace more precarious than before.

It is admitted on all hands that the present frontiers of several States are eminently unfair. Those of Germany, Hungary, Austria are striking examples. In fixing them the reconstructors of new Europe blundered woefully. It is but right, however, to add that they had a Gordian knot to untie and they cut it. For Solomon with all his wisdom would have found it beyond his powers to assign satisfactory frontiers to the Eastern States of Europe. Several of those communities have had geographical, historical, economic, linguistic, and strategic frontiers which differ from each other considerably, some of them encroaching iniquitously on the territory of other Powers. And the latter are the frontiers to which they generally lay claim. Consequently, whichever kind of boundary the areopagus might choose would be certain to aggrieve mortally one or even both the interested rivals. The Peace Treaties abound in illustrations. They have assigned to one State a foreign population of nearly fifty per cent., to a second one of over fifty per cent., and to others lesser but large refractory foreign elements. Those acts of injustice cannot be righted peacefully only a war can alter national boundaries, and the next war will do more-it will decimate nations as well.

But the baleful effects of European policies do not end there. Formerly the State which gathered within its precincts two or more nationalities left them free to cultivate their respective language, history, press, educational systems, customs, and traditions. Austria and Switzerland are examples. The denationalisation of their various nationalities formed no part of their programme. To-day such foreign elements have fallen upon evil times. They are denied all those rights, and are being systematically denationalised as a step preliminary to their assimilation by the ruling race. The bitter complaints of the Southern Tyrolese, for instance, who