The exception alluded to above is Art. 80 of the German Treaty, providing that the independence of Austria shall be inalienable, except with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, and Art. 88 of the Austrian Treaty equally declaring the independence of Austria to be inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League. Art. 73 of the Hungarian Treaty is similar. This undoubtedly conflicts with the principle of self-determination, and it is impossible to see how the provision can be justified.

The Austrian Treaty was reported to be ready on May 12 (while the German Treaty was still unsigned), and the Austrian Delegation arrived at St Germain on the 14th. Yet it was not till the 29th that an incomplete copy, which did not contain the Military, Reparation, and Financial clauses, was presented to the seventh plenary meeting of the Conference. On June 2, the draft was handed to the Austrian Delegation, and discussion began. The concessions already made to Germany had been introduced into it. On the 25th, the 'Big Three' discussed the measure of Reparation to be required from Austria. In response to the observations of the Austrian Delegation, changes in the Economic clauses were made on July 8, and the revised and amended treaty was delivered to the Delegation on the 20th. They made counter-proposals, to which the Allies replied on Sept. 2; and on the 4th the Austrian National Assembly, after recording a protest, authorised its signature. This formality was completed on Sept. 10.

The conclusion of the treaty with Hungary, which. closely follows the lines of the Austrian Treaty, was nevertheless subjected to great delay. This was caused by a Bolshevist movement. From May to July its leader Béla Kun defied the authority of the Supreme Council. Various attempts at setting up a stable administration followed; but it was not till Dec. 1 that the Supreme Council decided to recognise the Hungarian Government. The Peace Delegation arrived in Paris on Jan. 7, 1920. As the result of their representations the Supreme Council decided on certain modifications, and the terms of the Peace Treaty were delivered to the Delegation on Jan. 15. In March a report was presented by the proper Commission on certain observations on Part XII (Ports,

Waterways, and Railways); but, as all the concessions which it had been found possible to make to either Germany or Austria had already been embodied in the treaty, no further alterations were agreed to. The 'History' does not reveal the causes which led to the signature being further postponed to June 4.

The Draft Treaty with Bulgaria was handed to the Bulgarian Delegation on Sept. 19, 1919. It contained all the concessions granted to Germany and Austria, so far as they applied. The Bulgarian observations were held not to justify any alteration of the articles; and, readiness to sign having been expressed by the Delegation on Nov. 14, signature took place on the 27th.

A Turkish Delegation was summoned to Paris and stated its views to a revived Council of Ten' on June 17, 1919. They provoked merely a sharp rejoinder and the Delegation left Paris on the 28th. The Turkish Treaty was not signed till Aug. 10, 1920. This long delay may have been caused by difference of opinion among the Allies with respect to the future of Constantinople.

In all the Peace Treaties the most important provisions that excited opposition from the defeated belligerents related to Reparation and the Territorial Clauses. The latter were, generally speaking, the effect of applying the principle of self-determination to subject peoples and races, though there were certain exceptions, the most flagrant of which was perhaps the cession of South Tirol, a purely German territory, to Italy. Reparation is the title of that part of the Peace Treaties which provides for the compensation of damage done to the Allied and Associated Powers and their peoples. Certain acts of damage specified in the Hague Convention IV of 1907, and the Regulations thereto annexed, render the belligerent party liable to make compensation. This covers responsibility for all such acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces. Among them are included bombardment, by any means whatever, of undefended towns, villages, habitations or buildings; pillaging of towns or places even when taken by assault; destruction or seizure of the enemy's property unless such act is imperatively demanded by the necessities of war; the confiscation of

private property; the violation of family honour and rights; taking the lives of individuals or their property; and the infliction of general penalties, pecuniary or otherwise, on the population on account of acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible. All appliances for the transport of persons or goods if seized must be restored, and indemnities for them regulated at the peace; all destruction or intentional damage to institutions dedicated to religious worship, charity, education, art and science is forbidden. Such damage on a huge scale in Belgium and NorthEastern France was wilfully caused by the invaders, to say nothing of other violations of international law and conventions. Evidently the claim for compensation cannot be entirely met by money payments, and must be provided for by the delivery of other forms of property. And this is stipulated for in the various Peace Treaties, as follows:

Germany, Art. 231.-The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by Germany and her allies.

Art. 232.-The Allied and Associated Governments recognise that the resources of Germany are not adequate, after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other provisions of the present Treaty, to make complete reparation of all such loss and damage.

In the Austrian and Hungarian Treaties the corresponding articles are identical with this, except that 'all' is omitted before 'loss' in both places.

The corresponding provisions of the Bulgarian Treaty

are:

Art. 121.- Bulgaria recognises that, by joining in the war of aggression which Germany and Austria waged against the Allied and Associated Powers, she has caused to the latter losses and sacrifices of all kinds, for which she ought to make reparation.

'On the other hand, the Allied and Associated Powers recognise that the resources of Bulgaria are not sufficient to enable her to make complete reparation.'

Whereas the amount of compensation to be paid by Vol. 235.-No. 466.

B

each of the first three Powers above named is to be fixed by an Inter-allied commission set up for that purpose, Bulgaria's quota is fixed at 2,250,000,000 francs gold.

In the Turkish Treaty the admission of responsibility and recognition of insufficiency of resources are expressed in identical terms with those of the Bulgarian Treaty, except that there is no mention of Associated Powers. But

' inasmuch as the territorial arrangements resulting from the present Treaty will leave to Turkey only a portion of the revenues of the former Turkish Empire, all claims against the Turkish Empire for reparation are waived by the Allied Powers, subject only to the provisions of this Part [Financial Clauses] and of Part IX (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty. Such are all loss and damage suffered by civilian nationals of the Allied Powers, in respect of their persons or property, through the action or negligence of the Turkish authorities during the war and up to the coming into force of the present Treaty,' also such restitutions, reparations, and indemnities as may be fixed by the Financial Commission [set up by Art. 231, 4th paragraph] in respect of damages inflicted on the European Commission of the Danube during the war.'

The maps annexed to the Austrian and Hungarian Treaties show what portions of the former AustroHungarian Empire have been detached in favour of Italy (the area of which has yet to be settled), CzechoSlovakia, the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State and Rumania. These leave the Austrian and Hungarian Republics without any sea-ports. To remedy this inconvenience

'Free access to the Adriatic Sea is accorded to Austria and Hungary [by Art. 311 and Art. 294 of the respective Treaties] who with this object will enjoy freedom of transit over the territories and in the ports severed from the former AustroHungarian Monarchy. . . . Freedom of transit will extend to postal, telegraphic and telephonic services.'

It is when we come to examine the Turkish Treaty of Peace that the losses of territory are found far to exceed what either Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Bulgaria has had to accept. These are contained in Part III Political Clauses, Part II Frontiers of Turkey, and are delineated on the maps annexed to the Treaty.

Firstly, as regards Constantinople. It is an open secret that the question whether the possession of this Imperial City, fitted by its geographical position to be the capital of a mighty State, should be left to the Turks, remained undetermined until a very short period before the draft was finally settled. It is greatly to be regretted that no better solution could be found in present circumstances. The notion that the Ottoman Sultan is the recognised head of Mohammedanism, and that his seat, if he be such a head (it is well known that the Mohammedans of Morocco have never recognised him in that capacity), must necessarily be at Constantinople and nowhere else, is as devoid of foundation as the corresponding imagination that the Head of the Roman Catholic Church must be permanently and unalterably established at Rome. The presence of the Ottoman Turk on the northern side of the Bosphorus since 1453 has been the provocative cause of all the wars that have been waged in that part of Europe; and the pacification of the Balkan Peninsula has been despaired of as long as he remains there. It is useless for his partisans to descant upon his social virtues. Every nation has the government that it deserves; and, if he is such a virtuous person as they maintain, how comes it that he has produced such a succession of tyrannical, sanguinaryminded, and corrupt rulers?

Art. 36 provides that:

'Subject to the provisions of the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties agree that the rights and title of the Turkish Government over Constantinople shall not be affected, and that the said Government and His Majesty the Sultan shall be entitled to reside there and to maintain there the capital of the Turkish State.

'Nevertheless, in the event of Turkey failing to observe faithfully the provisions of the present Treaty, or of any treaties or conventions supplementary thereto, particularly as regards the protection of the rights of racial, religious or linguistic minorities, the Allied Powers expressly reserve the right to modify the above provisions, and Turkey hereby agrees to accept any dispositions which may be taken in this connexion.'

The frontiers of Turkey in Europe are defined by the Black Sea from the entrance of the Bosphorus to a