Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White Vol. 2
by Andrew Dickson White
Hypertext Meanings and Commentaries
from the Encyclopedia of the Self
by Mark Zimmerman
Return to Part 1 of 2

The other large rooms on the main floor are exceedingly handsome,
with superb Japanese and Chinese hangings, wrought about the
middle of the last century to fit the spaces they occupy; on all
sides are the most perfect specimens of Japanese and Chinese
bronzes, ivory carvings, lacquer-work, and the like: these rooms
are given up to the committees into which the whole body is
divided. Up-stairs is a dining-hall in which the Dutch Government
serves, every working-day, a most bounteous lunch to us all, and
at this there is much opportunity for informal discussion. Near
the main hall is a sumptuous saloon, hung round with interesting
portraits, one of them being an admirable likeness of Motley the
historian, who was a great favorite of the late Queen, and
frequently her guest in this palace.

Our first session was very interesting; the speech by the
honorary president, M. de Beaufort, above referred to, was in
every way admirable, and that by the president, M. de Staal,
thoroughly good. The latter is the Russian ambassador to London;
I had already met him in St. Petersburg, and found him
interesting and agreeable. He is, no doubt, one of the foremost
diplomatists of this epoch; but he is evidently without much
knowledge of parliamentary procedure. Congratulatory telegrams
were received from the Emperor of Russia and the Queen of the
Netherlands and duly answered.

May 19.

At eleven in the morning, in one of the large rooms of the hotel,
the presidents of delegations met to decide on a plan of
organization and work; and, sitting among them, I first began to
have some hopes of a good result. Still, at the outset, the
prospect was much beclouded. Though a very considerable number of
the foremost statesmen in Europe were present, our deliberations
appeared, for a time, a hopeless chaos: the unfamiliarity of our
president, Baron de Staal, with parliamentary usages seemed
likely to become embarrassing; but sundry statesmen, more
experienced in such matters, began drawing together, and were
soon elaborating a scheme to be presented to the entire
conference. It divided all the subjects named in the Mouravieff
circular among three great committees, the most important being
that on "Arbitration." The choice of representatives on these
from our delegation was made, and an ex-officio membership of all
three falls to me.

In the course of the day I met and talked with various
interesting men, among them Count Nigra, formerly Cavour's
private secretary and ambassador at the court of Napoleon III,
where he accomplished so much for Italian unity; Sir Julian
Pauncefote, the British ambassador at Washington; and M.
Bernaert, president of the Belgian Chamber. In the evening, at a
reception given by the minister of foreign affairs, M. de
Beaufort, I made further acquaintances and had instructive
conversations.

In addition to the strict duties of the conference, there is, of
course, a mass of social business, with no end of visits, calls,
and special meetings, to say nothing of social functions, on a
large scale, at the houses of sundry ministers and officials; but
these, of course, have their practical uses.

The Dutch Government is showing itself princely in various ways,
making every provision for our comfort and enjoyment.

In general, I am considerably encouraged. The skeptical feeling
with which we came together seems now passing away; the recent
speech of the Emperor William at Wiesbaden has aroused new hopes
of a fairly good chance for arbitration, and it looks as if the
promise made me just before I left Berlin by Baron von Bulow,
that the German delegation should cooperate thoroughly with our
own, is to be redeemed. That delegation assures us that it is
instructed to stand by us as far as possible on all the principal
questions. It forms a really fine body, its head being Count
Munster, whom I have already found very agreeable at Berlin and
Paris, and its main authority in the law of nations being
Professor Zorn, of the University of Konigsberg; but, curiously
enough, as if by a whim, the next man on its list is Professor
Baron von Stengel of Munich, who has written a book AGAINST
arbitration; and next to him comes Colonel Schwartzhoff, said to
be a man of remarkable ability in military matters, but strongly
prejudiced against the Russian proposals.

As to arbitration, we cannot make it compulsory, as so many very
good people wish; it is clear that no power here would agree to
that; but even to provide regular machinery for arbitration,
constantly in the sight of all nations, and always ready for use,
would be a great gain.

As to disarmament, it is clear that nothing effective can be done
at present. The Geneva rules for the better care of the wounded
on land will certainly be improved and extended to warfare on
sea, and the laws of war will doubtless be improved and given
stronger sanction.

Whether we can get our proposals as to private property on the
high seas before the conference is uncertain; but I think we can.
Our hopes are based upon the fact that they seem admissible under
one heading of the Mouravieff circular. There is, of course, a
determination on the part of leading members to exclude
rigorously everything not provided for in the original programme,
and this is only right; for, otherwise, we might spend years in
fruitless discussion. The Armenians, for example, are pressing us
to make a strong declaration in their behalf. Poland is also here
with proposals even more inflammatory; so are the Finlanders; and
so are the South African Boers. Their proposals, if admitted,
would simply be bombshells sure to blow all the leading nations
of Europe out of the conference and bring everything to naught.
Already pessimists outside are prophesying that on account of
these questions we are doomed to utter failure.

The peace people of all nations, including our own, are here in
great force. I have accepted an invitation from one of them to
lunch with a party of like mind, including Baroness von Suttner,
who has written a brilliant book, "Die Waffen Nieder," of which
the moral is that all nations shall immediately throw down their
arms. Mr. Stead is also here, vigorous as usual, full of curious
information, and abounding in suggestions.

There was a report, on our arriving, that the Triple Alliance
representatives are instructed to do everything to bring the
conference into discredit, but this is now denied. It is said
that their programme is changed, and things look like it. On the
whole, though no one is sanguine, there is more hope.

May 21.

In the morning went with Dr. Holls to a Whitsunday service at the
great old church here. There was a crowd, impressive chorals, and
a sermon at least an hour long. At our request, we were given
admirable places in the organ-loft, and sat at the side of the
organist as he managed that noble instrument. It was sublime.
After the closing voluntary Holls played remarkably well

To me the most striking feature in the service was a very earnest
prayer made by the clergyman for the conference. During the
afternoon we also visited the old prison near the Vijver, where
the De Witts and other eminent prisoners of state were confined,
and in front of which the former were torn in pieces by the mob.
Sadly interesting was a collection of instruments of torture,
which had the effect of making me better satisfied with our own
times than I sometimes am.

In the evening, with our minister, Mr. Newel, and the Dean of
Ely, his guest, to an exceedingly pleasant "tea" at the house of
Baroness Gravensteen, and met a number of interesting people,
among them a kindly old gentleman who began diplomatic life as a
British attache at Washington in the days of Webster and Clay,
and gave me interesting accounts of them.

The queer letters and crankish proposals which come in every day
are amazing. I have just added to my collection of diplomatic
curiosities a letter from the editor of a Democratic paper in
southern Illinois, addressed to me as ambassador at Mayence,
which he evidently takes to be the capital of Germany, asking me
to look after a great party of Western newspaper men who are to
go up the Rhine this summer and make a brief stay in the
above-named capital of the empire. I also receive very many
letters of introduction, which of course make large demands upon
my time. The number of epistles, also, which come in from public
meetings in large and small American towns is very great, some
evidently representing no persons other than the writers. As I
write the above, I open mechanically a letter from a peace
meeting assembled in Ledyard, Connecticut, composed of "Rogerine
Quakers"; but what a "Rogerine Quaker" is I know not. Some of
these letters are touching, and some have a comic side. A very
good one comes from May Wright Sewall; would that all the others
were as thoughtful!

It goes without saying that the Quakers are out in full force. We
have been answering by cable some of the most important
communications sent us from America; the others we shall try to
acknowledge by mail, though they are so numerous that I begin to
despair of this. If these good people only knew how all this
distracts us from the work which we have at heart as much as
they, we should get considerably more time to think upon the
problems before us.

May 22.

In the afternoon came M. de Bloch, the great publicist, who has
written four enormous volumes on war in modern times, summaries
of which, in the newspapers, are said to have converted the young
Emperor Nicholas to peace ideas, and to have been the real cause
of his calling the conference together. I found him interesting,
full of ideas, and devoted most earnestly to a theory that
militarism is gradually impoverishing all modern states, and that
the next European war will pauperize most of them.

Just afterward Count Welsersheimb, president of the Austrian
delegation, called, and was very anxious to know the line we are
to take. I told him frankly that we are instructed to present a
plan of arbitration, and to urge a resolution in favor of
exempting private property, not contraband of war, from seizure
on the high seas; that we are ready to go to the full length in
improving the laws of war, and in extending the Geneva rules to
maritime warfare; but that we look on the question of reducing
armaments as relating wholly to Europe, no part of it being
applicable to the United States.

As he seemed strongly in favor of our contention regarding
private property on the high seas, but fearful that Russia and
England, under a strict construction of the rules, would not
permit the subject to be introduced, I pointed out to him certain
clauses in the Mouravieff circular which showed that it was
entirely admissible.

May 23.

In the morning came a meeting of the American delegation on the
subject of telegraphing Washington for further instructions. We
find that some of the details in our present instructions are
likely to wreck our proposals, and there is a fear among us that,
by following too closely the plan laid down for us at Washington,
we may run full in the face of the Monroe Doctrine. It is indeed,
a question whether our people will be willing to have matters of
difference between South American States, or between the United
States and a South American State, or between European and South
American States, submitted to an arbitration in which a majority
of the judges are subjects of European powers. Various drafts of
a telegram were made, but the whole matter went over.

At ten the heads of delegations met and considered a plan of
organizing the various committees, and the list was read. Each of
the three great committees to which the subjects mentioned in the
Mouravieff circular are assigned was given a president,
vice-president, and two honorary presidents. The first of these
committees is to take charge of the preliminary discussion of
those articles in the Mouravieff circular concerning the
non-augmentation of armies and the limitation in the use of new
explosives and of especially destructive weapons. The second
committee has for its subject the discussion of humanitarian
reforms--namely, the adaptation of the stipulations of the
Convention of Geneva of 1864 to maritime warfare, the
neutralization of vessels charged with saving the wounded during
maritime combats, and the revision of the declaration concerning
customs of war elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels,
which has never yet been ratified. The third committee has charge
of the subject of arbitration, mediation, and the like.

The president of the first committee is M. Bernaert, a leading
statesman of Belgium, who has made a most excellent impression on
me from the first; and the two honorary presidents are Count
Munster, German ambassador at Paris, and myself.

The president of the second committee is M. de Martens, the
eminent Russian authority on international law; and the two
honorary presidents, Count Welsersheimb of Austria-Hungary, and
the Duke of Tetuan from Spain.

The third committee receives as its president M. Leon Bourgeois,
who has held various eminent positions in France; the honorary
presidents being Count Nigra, the Italian ambassador at Vienna,
and Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British ambassador at Washington.

There was much discussion and considerable difference of opinion
on many points, but the main breeze sprang up regarding the
publicity of our doings. An admirable speech was made by Baron de
Bildt, who is a son of my former Swedish colleague at Berlin, has
held various important positions at Washington and elsewhere, has
written an admirable history of Queen Christina of Sweden, and is
now minister plenipotentiary at Rome. He spoke earnestly in favor
of considerable latitude in communications to the press from the
authorities of the conference; but the prevailing opinion,
especially of the older men, even of those from constitutional
states, seemed to second the idea of Russia,--that communications
to the press should be reduced to a minimum, comprising merely
the external affairs of the conference. I am persuaded that this
view will get us into trouble; but it cannot be helped at
present.

May 24.

As was to be expected, there has begun some reaction from the
hopes indulged shortly after the conference came together. At our
arrival there was general skepticism; shortly afterward, and
especially when the organization of the arbitration committee was
seen to be so good, there came a great growth of hope; now comes
the usual falling back of many. But I trust that this will not be
permanent. Yesterday there was some talk which, though quiet, was
none the less bitter, to the effect that the purpose of Russia in
calling the conference is only to secure time for strengthening
her armaments; that she was never increasing her forces at a
greater rate, especially in the southwestern part of the empire
and in the Caucasus, and never intriguing more vigorously in all
directions. To one who stated this to me my answer simply was
that bad faith to this extent on the part of Russia is most
unlikely, if not impossible; that it would hand down the Emperor
and his advisers to the eternal execration and contempt of
mankind; and that, in any case, our duty is clear: to go on and
do the best we can; to perfect plans for a permanent tribunal of
arbitration; and to take measures for diminishing cruelty and
suffering in war.

Meeting Count Munster, who, after M. de Staal, is very generally
considered the most important personage here, we discussed the
subject of arbitration. To my great regret, I found him entirely
opposed to it, or, at least, entirely opposed to any
well-developed plan. He did not say that he would oppose a
moderate plan for voluntary arbitration, but he insisted that
arbitration must be injurious to Germany; that Germany is
prepared for war as no other country is or can be; that she can
mobilize her army in ten days; and that neither France, Russia,
nor any other power can do this. Arbitration, he said, would
simply give rival powers time to put themselves in readiness, and
would therefore be a great disadvantage to Germany.

Later came another disappointment. M. de Martens, having read the
memorandum which I left with him yesterday on the subject of
exempting private property, not contraband of war, from seizure
upon the high seas called, and insisted that it would be
impossible, under any just construction of the Mouravieff
programme, to bring the subject before the second committee as we
had hoped to do; that Russia would feel obliged to oppose its
introduction; and that Great Britain, France, and Italy, to say
nothing of other powers, would do the same. This was rather
trying, for I had especially desired to press this long-desired
improvement in international law; and I showed him how persistent
the United States had been as regards this subject throughout our
whole history, how earnest the President and his cabinet are in
pressing it now, and how our delegation are bound, under our
instructions, to bring it before the conference. I insisted that
we should at least have the opportunity to present it, even if it
were afterward declared out of order. To this he demurred, saying
that he feared it would arouse unpleasant debate. I then
suggested that the paper be publicly submitted to our whole body
for special reference to a future conference, and this he took
into consideration. Under other circumstances, I would have made
a struggle in the committee and, indeed, in the open session of
the full conference; but it is clear that what we are sent here
for is, above all, to devise some scheme of arbitration, and that
anything which comes in the way of this, by provoking ill-feeling
or prolonging discussion on other points, will diminish our
chances of obtaining what the whole world so earnestly desires.

During the day our American delegation held two sessions; and, as
a result, a telegram of considerable length to the State
Department was elaborated, asking permission to substitute a new
section in our original instructions regarding an arbitration
tribunal, and to be allowed liberty to make changes in minor
points, as the development of opinion in the conference may
demand. The substitute which we suggested referred especially to
the clash between the original instructions and the Monroe
Doctrine. I was very reluctant to send the despatch; but, on the
whole, it seemed best, and it was adopted unanimously.

In the afternoon, at five, the presidents of all the delegations
went to the palace, by appointment, and were presented to the
young Queen and to the Queen-mother. The former is exceedingly
modest, pretty, and pleasant; and as she came into the room,
about which were ranged that line of solemn, elderly men, it
seemed almost pathetic. She was evidently timid, and it was, at
first, hard work for her; but she got along well with Count
Munster, and when she came to me I soon brought the conversation
upon the subject of the "House in the Wood" by thanking her for
the pains her government had taken in providing so beautiful a
place for us. This new topic seemed to please her, and we had
quite a long talk upon it; she speaking of her visits to the
park, for skating and the like, and I dwelling on the beauty of
the works of art and the views in the park. Then the delegates,
going to the apartments of the Queen-mother, went through a
similar formality with her. She is very stout, but fine-looking,
with a kindly face and manner. Both mother and daughter spoke,
with perfect ease, Dutch, French, German English, and how many
other languages I know not. The young Queen was very simply
dressed, like any other young lady of seventeen, except that she
had a triple row of large pearls about her neck. In the evening,
at 9.30, the entire delegations were received at a great
presentation and ball. The music was very fine, but the most
interesting thing to me was the fact that, as the palace was
built under Louis Bonaparte and Hortense, the main rooms were in
the most thoroughgoing style Empire, not only in their
decorations, but in their furniture and accessories,--clocks,
vases, candelabra, and the like. I have never seen that style,
formerly so despised, but now so fashionable, developed as fully.

After the presentation I met Sir John Fisher, one of the English
delegates, an admiral in the British navy, and found him very
intelligent. He said that he was thoroughly for peace, and had
every reason to be so, since he knew something of the horrors of
war. It appears that in one of the recent struggles in China he
went ashore with eleven hundred men and returned with only about
five hundred; but, to my regret, I found him using the same
argument as regards the sea that Count Munster had made regarding
the land. He said that the navy of Great Britain was and would
remain in a state of complete preparation for war; that a vast
deal depended on prompt action by the navy; and that the truce
afforded by arbitration proceedings would give other powers time,
which they would otherwise not have, to put themselves into
complete readiness. He seemed uncertain whether it was best for
Great Britain, under these circumstances, to support a
thoroughgoing plan of arbitration; but, on the whole, seemed
inclined to try it to some extent. Clearly what Great Britain
wants is a permanent system of arbitration with the United
States; but she does not care much, I think, for such a provision
as regards other powers.

There is considerable curiosity among leading members to know
what the United States really intends to do; and during the day
Sir Julian Pauncefote and others have called to talk over the
general subject.

The London "Times" gives quite correctly a conversation of mine,
of rather an optimistic nature, as to the possibilities and
probabilities of arbitration, and the improvement of the customs
of war; but in another quarter matters have not gone so well: the
"Corriere della Sera" of Milan publishes a circumstantial
interview with me, which has been copied extensively in the
European press, to the effect that I have declared my belief in
the adoption of compulsory arbitration and disarmament. This is a
grotesque misstatement. I have never dreamed of saying anything
of the kind; in fact, have constantly said the contrary; and,
what is more, I have never been interviewed by the correspondent
of that or of any other Continental paper.

CHAPTER XLVI

AS PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN DELEGATION AT THE PEACE CONFERENCE
OF THE HAGUE--II

May 25. This morning a leading delegate of one of the great
European powers called and gave me a very interesting account of
the situation as he sees it.

He stated that the Russian representatives, on arriving here,
gave out that they were not prepared with any plan for a definite
tribunal of arbitration; but that shortly afterward there
appeared some discrepancy on this point between the statements of
the various members of their delegation; and that they now
propose a system of arbitration, mediation, and examination into
any cause of difficulty between nations.

In the evening our secretary spoke of the matter to M. de Staal,
the president of the Russian delegation and of the conference,
and was told that this plan would, within a day or two, be
printed and laid before the whole body.

This is a favorable sign. More and more it looks as if the great
majority of us are beginning to see the necessity of some scheme
of arbitration embracing a court and definite, well-contrived
accessories.

The above-mentioned discrepancy between various statements of the
Russians leads me to think that what Count Munster told me some
days since may have some truth in it--namely, that
Pobedonostzeff, whom I knew well, when minister to Russia, as the
strongest man of moral, religious, and social questions in that
country, is really the author of the documents that were
originally given to the world as emanating from the Russian
Foreign Office, and that he has now added to them this definite
scheme for arbitration. Remembering our old conversations, in
which he dwelt upon the great need of money in order to increase
the stipends of the Russian clergy, and so improve their moral as
well as religious condition, I can understand easily that he may
have greatly at heart a plan which would save a portion of the
enormous expenditure of Russia on war, and enable him to do more
for the improvement of the church.

Dined at the British legation with the minister, my old friend of
St. Petersburg days, Sir Henry Howard, De Martens, the real head
of the Russian delegation, being of the party, and had a long
talk with the latter about Russia and Russians. He told me that
Pobedonostzeff is now becoming old and infirm, and it appears
that there has been a sort of cleaning out of the Foreign Office
and the Ministry of the Interior--a procedure which was certainly
needed in my time.

Later in the evening we went to a reception by Baron van
Hardenbroek, the grand chamberlain, where I met various
interesting persons, especially M. Descamps, the eminent Belgian
delegate, who, in the fervor of his speech yesterday morning,
upset his inkstand and lavished its contents on his neighbors. He
is a devotee of arbitration, and is preparing a summary for the
committee intrusted with that subject. There seemed to be, in
discussing the matter with various delegates at this reception, a
general feeling of encouragement.

During the day Mr. Loeher, a Berlin sculptor, called, and carried
me off to see his plan of a great statue of "Peace" which he
hopes to induce the Emperor Nicholas to erect in Paris. It seems
to me well conceived, all except the main figure, which I could
not induce myself to like. In the anxiety of the sculptor to
avoid any more female figures, and to embody virile aspirations
for peace, he has placed this main figure at the summit of the
monument in something like a long pea-jacket, with an
insufficient mantle at the back, and a crown upon its head.

The number of people with plans, schemes, notions, nostrums,
whimsies of all sorts, who press upon us and try to take our
time, is enormous; and when to this is added the pest of
interviewers and photographers, life becomes serious indeed.

May 26.

At two the committee on arbitration met, and, as it is the
largest of all, its session was held in the main hall under the
dome. The Russian plan was presented, and was found to embrace
three distinct features:

First, elements of a plan of mediation; secondly, a plan for
international arbitration; thirdly, a plan for the international
examination of questions arising between powers, such examination
being conducted by persons chosen by each of the contestants.
This last is a new feature and is known as a commission
internationale d'enquete.

The project for a plan of arbitration submits a number of minor
matters to compulsory arbitration, but the main mass of
differences to voluntary arbitration.

But there was no definite proposal for a tribunal, and there was
an evident feeling of disappointment, which was presently voiced
by Sir Julian Pauncefote, who, in the sort of plain, dogged way
of a man who does not purpose to lose what he came for, presented
a resolution looking definitely to the establishment, here and
now, of an international tribunal of arbitration. After some
discussion, the whole was referred to a subcommittee, to put this
and any other proposals submitted into shape for discussion by
the main committee. In the course of the morning the American
delegation received an answer to its telegram to the State
Department, which was all that could be desired, since it left us
virtually free to take the course which circumstances might
authorize, in view of the main object to be attained. But it came
too late to enable us to elaborate a plan for the meeting above
referred to, and I obtained permission from the president, M.
Leon Bourgeois, to defer the presentation of our scheme until
about the middle of next week.

Just before the session of the main committee, at which the
Russian plan was received, I had a long and very interesting talk
with Mr. van Karnebeek, one of the leading statesmen of the
Netherlands, a former minister of foreign affairs, and the
present chief of the Dutch delegation in the conference. He seems
clear-headed and farsighted, and his belief is that the
conference will really do something of value for arbitration. He
says that men who arrived here apparently indifferent have now
become interested, and that amour propre, if nothing else, will
lead them to elaborate something likely to be useful. He went at
considerable length into the value of an international tribunal,
even if it does nothing more than keep nations mindful of the
fact that there is some way, other than war, of settling
disputes.

A delegate also informed me that in talking with M. de Staal the
latter declared that in his opinion the present conference is
only the first of a series, and that it is quite likely that
another will be held next winter or next spring.

In the evening I made the acquaintance of Mr. Marshall, a
newspaper correspondent, who is here preparing some magazine
articles on The Hague and the conference. He is a very
interesting man on various accounts, and especially at present,
since he has but just returned from the Cuban campaign, where he
was fearfully wounded, receiving two shots which carried away
parts of the vertebral column, a bullet being left in his body.
He seems very cheerful, though obliged to get about on crutches.

May 27.

In the morning, calls from various people urging all kinds of
schemes for arbitration and various other good things for the
human race, including considerable advantages, in many cases, for
themselves.

Best of all, by far, was John Bellows of Gloucester, our old
Quaker friend at St. Petersburg, whom I was exceedingly glad to
take by the hand: he, at least, is a thoroughly good
man--sincere, honest, earnest, and blessed with good sense.

The number of documents, printed and written, coming in upon us
is still enormous. Many are virtually sermons displaying the
evils of war, the blessings of peace, and the necessity of
falling back upon the Bible. Considering the fact that our
earlier sacred books indicate approval by the Almighty of some of
the most bloodthirsty peoples and most cruel wars ever known,
such a recommendation seems lacking in "actuality."

This morning we had another visit from Sir Julian Pauncefote,
president of the British delegation, and discussed with him an
amalgamation of the Russian, British, and American proposals for
an arbitration tribunal. He finds himself, as we all do,
agreeably surprised by the Russian document, which, inadequate as
it is, shows ability in devising a permanent scheme both for
mediation and arbitration.

During the day President Low, who had been asked by our
delegation to bring the various proposals agreed to by us into
definite shape, made his report; it was thoroughly well done,
and, with some slight changes, was adopted as the basis for our
final project of an arbitration scheme. We are all to meet on
Monday, the 29th, for a study of it.

In the evening to the concert given to the conference by the
burgomaster and city council. It was very fine, and the audience
was large and brilliant. There was music by Tschaikovsky, Grieg,
and Wagner, some of which was good, but most of it seemed to me
noisy and tending nowhither; happily, in the midst of it came two
noble pieces, one by Beethoven and the other by Mozart, which
gave a delightful relief.

May 28.

Drove with Dr. Holls to Delft, five miles, and attended service
at the "New Church." The building was noble, but the service
seemed very crude and dismal, nearly the whole of it consisting
of two long sermons separated by hymns, and all unspeakably
dreary.

Afterward we saw the tombs of William of Orange and Grotius, and
they stirred many thoughts. I visited them first nearly forty
years ago, with three persons very dear to me, all of whom are
now passed away. More than ever it is clear to me that of all
books ever written--not claiming divine inspiration--the great
work of Grotius on "War and Peace" has been of most benefit to
mankind. Our work here, at the end of the nineteenth century, is
the direct result of his, at the beginning of the seventeenth.

Afterward to the Prinzenhof, visiting the place where William of
Orange was assassinated. Was glad to see the new statue of
Grotius in front of the church where he lies buried.

May 29.

In the morning President Low and myself walked, and talked over
various proposals for arbitration, especially our own. It looks
much as if we can amalgamate the Russian, British, and original
American plans into a good arrangement for a tribunal. We also
discussed a scheme for the selection, by disagreeing nations, of
"seconding powers," who, before the beginning of hostilities, or
even after, shall attempt to settle difficulties between powers,
or, if unsuccessful, to stop them as soon after war begins as the
honor of the nations concerned may allow. The Germans greatly
favor this plan, since it resembles their tribunal of honor
(Ehrengericht); it was originally suggested to us by our
secretary, Dr. Holls.

In the evening, at six, the American delegation met. We had
before us type-written copies of our whole arbitration project as
elaborated in our previous sessions, and sundry changes having
been made, most of them verbal, the whole, after considerable
discussion, was adopted.

At ten I left, via Hook of Holland and Harwich, for London,
arriving about ten the next morning, and attending to various
matters of business. It was fortunate for me that I could have
for this purpose an almost complete lull in our proceedings, the
first and second committees of the conference being at work on
technical matters, and the third not meeting until next Monday.

In the evening I went to the Lyceum Theatre, saw Henry Irving and
Ellen Terry in Sardou's "Robespierre," and for the first time in
my life was woefully disappointed in them. The play is wretchedly
conceived, and it amazes me that Sardou, who wrote "Thermidor,"
which is as admirable as "Robespierre" is miserable could ever
have attached his name to such a piece.

For the wretchedness of its form there is, no doubt, some excuse
in the fact that it has been done into English, and doubtless
cut, pieced, and altered to suit the Lyceum audiences; but when
one compares the conspiracy part of it with a properly conceived
drama in which a conspiracy is developed, like Schiller's
"Fiesco," the difference is enormously in favor of the latter. As
literature the play in its English dress is below contempt.

As to its historical contents, Sardou resorts to an expedient
which, although quite French in its character, brings the whole
thing down to a lower level than anything in which I had ever
seen Irving before. The center of interest is a young royalist
who, having been present with his mother and sister at the
roll-call of the condemned and the harrowing scenes resulting
therefrom, rushes forth, determined to assassinate Robespierre,
but is discovered by the latter to be his long-lost illegitimate
son, and then occur a series of mystifications suited only to the
lowest boulevard melodrama.

As to the action of the piece, the only thing that showed
Irving's great ability was the scene in the forest of
Montmorency, where, as Robespierre, he reveals at one moment, in
his talk with the English envoy, his ambition, his overestimate
of himself, his suspicion of everybody and everything, his
willingness to be cruel to any extent in order to baffle possible
enemies; and then, next moment, on the arrival of his young
friends, boys and girls, the sentimental, Rousseau side of his
character. This transition was very striking. The changes in the
expression of Irving's face were marvelous--as wonderful as those
in his Louis XI; but that was very nearly all. In everything
else, Coquelin, as I had seen him in Sardou's "Thermidor," was
infinitely better.

Besides this, the piece was, in general, grotesquely
unhistorical. It exhibits Robespierre's colleagues in the
Committee of Public Safety as noisy and dirty street blackguards.
Now, bad as they were, they were not at all of that species, nor
did their deliberations take place in the manner depicted.
Billaud-Varennes is represented as a drunken vagabond sitting on
a table at the committee and declaiming. He was not this at all,
nor was Tallien, vile as he was, anything like the blackguard
shown in this piece.

The final scene, in which Robespierre is brought under accusation
by the Convention, was vastly inferior to the same thing in
"Thermidor"; and, what was worse, instead of paraphrasing or
translating the speeches of Billaud-Varennes, Tallien, and
Robespierre, which he might have found in the "Moniteur," Sardou,
or rather Irving, makes the leading characters yell harangues
very much of the sort which would be made in a meeting of drunken
dock laborers to-day. Irving's part in this was not at all well
done. The unhistorical details now came thick and fast, among
them his putting his head down on the table of the tribune as a
sign of exhaustion, and then, at the close, shooting himself in
front of the tribunal. If he did shoot himself, which is
doubtful, it was neither at that time nor in that place.

But, worst of all, the character of Robespierre was made far too
melodramatic, and was utterly unworthy of Irving, whom, in all
his other pieces, I have vastly admired. He completely
misconceives his hero. Instead of representing him as, from first
to last, a shallow Rousseau sentimentalist, with the proper
mixture of vanity, suspicion, and cruelty, he puts into him a
great deal too much of the ruffian, which was not at all in
Robespierre's character.

The most striking scene in the whole was the roll-call at the
prison. This was perhaps better than that in Sardou's
"Thermidor," and the tableaux were decidedly better.

The scene at the "Festival of the Supreme Being" was also very
striking, and in many respects historical; but, unless I am
greatly mistaken, the performance referred to did not take place
as represented, but in the garden directly in front of the
Tuileries. The family scene at the house of Duplay the carpenter
was exceedingly well managed; old Duplay, smoking his pipe,
listening to his daughters playing on a spinet and singing
sentimental songs of the Rousseau period, was perfect. The old
carpenter and his family evidently felt that the golden age had
at last arrived; that humanity was at the end of its troubles;
and that the world was indebted for it all to their lodger
Robespierre, who sat in the midst of them reading, writing, and
enjoying the coddling and applause lavished upon him. And he and
they were to go to the guillotine within a week!

Incidentally there came a little touch worthy of Sardou; for, as
Robespierre reads his letters, he finds one from his brother, in
which he speaks of a young soldier and revolutionist of ability
whose acquaintance he has just made, whom he very much likes, and
whose republicanism he thoroughly indorses--one Buonaparte. This
might have occurred, and very likely did occur, very much as
shown on the stage; for one of the charges which nearly cost
Bonaparte his life on the Ninth Thermidor was that he was on
friendly terms with the younger Robespierre, who was executed
with his more famous brother.

On the whole, the play was very disappointing. It would certainly
have been hissed at the Porte St. Martin, and probably at any
other Paris theater.

June 1.

Having left London last evening, I arrived at The Hague early
this morning and found, to my great satisfaction, that the
subcommittee of the third committee had unanimously adopted the
American plan of "seconding powers," and that our whole general
plan of arbitration will be to-day in print and translated into
French for presentation. I also find that Sir Julian Pauncefote's
arbitration project has admirable points.

The first article in Sir Julian's proposal states that, with the
desire to facilitate immediate recourse to arbitration by nations
which may fail to adjust by diplomatic negotiations differences
arising between them, the signatory powers agree to organize a
permanent tribunal of international arbitration, accessible at
all times, to be governed by a code, provided by this conference,
so far as applicable and consistent with any special stipulations
agreed to between the contesting parties.

Its second provision is the establishment of a permanent central
office, where the records of the tribunal shall be preserved and
its official business transacted, with a permanent secretary,
archivist, and suitable staff, who shall reside on the spot. This
office shall make arrangements for the assembling of the
tribunal, at the request of contesting parties.

Its third provision is that each of the signatory powers shall
transmit the names of two persons who shall be recognized in
their own country as jurists or publicists of high character and
fitness, and who shall be qualified to act as judges. These
persons shall be members of the tribunal, and a list of their
names shall be recorded in the central office. In case of death
or retirement of any one of these, the vacancy shall be filled up
by new appointment.

Its fourth provision is that any of the signatory powers desiring
to have recourse to the tribunal for the settlement of
differences shall make known such desire to the secretary of the
central office, who shall thereupon furnish the powers concerned
with a list of the members of the tribunal, from which such
powers may select such number of judges as they may think best.
The powers concerned may also, if they think fit, adjoin to these
judges any other person, although his name may not appear on the
list. The persons so selected shall constitute the tribunal for
the purpose of such arbitration, and shall assemble at such date
as may be most convenient for the litigants.

The tribunal shall ordinarily hold its sessions at ----; but it
shall have power to fix its place of session elsewhere, and to
change the same from time to time, as circumstances may suggest.

The fifth provision is that any power, even though not
represented in the present conference, may have recourse to the
tribunal on such terms as may be prescribed by the regulations.

Provision sixth: The government of ----is charged by the
signatory powers, on their behalf, as soon as possible after the
conclusion of this convention, to name a permanent council of
administration, at ----, composed of five members and a
secretary. This council shall organize and establish the central
office, which shall be under its control and direction. It shall
make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the
office; it shall dispose of all questions that may arise in
relation to the working of the tribunal, or which may be referred
to it by the central office; it shall make all subordinate
appointments, may suspend or dismiss all employees, and shall fix
their salaries and control their expenditure. This council shall
select its president, who shall have a casting-vote. The
remuneration of the members shall be fixed from time to time by
accord between the signatory powers.

Provision seventh: The signatory powers agree to share among them
the expenses pertaining to the administration of the central
office and the council of administration; but the expenses
incident to every arbitration, including the remuneration of the
arbiters, shall be equally borne by the contesting powers.

From a theoretical point of view, I prefer to this our American
plan of a tribunal permanently in session: the judges, in every
particular case, to be selected from this. Thus would be provided
a court of any odd number between three and nine, as the
contesting powers may desire. But from the practical point of
view, even though the Russian plan of requiring the signatory
powers to send to the tribunal a multitude of smaller matters,
such as those connected with the postal service, etc., is carried
out, the great danger is that such a court, sitting constantly as
we propose, would, for some years, have very little to do, and
that soon we should have demagogues and feather-brained
"reformers" ridiculing them as "useless," "eating their heads
off," and "doing nothing"; that then demagogic appeals might lead
one nation after another to withdraw from an arrangement
involving large expense apparently useless; and in view of this
latter difficulty I am much inclined to think that we may, under
our amended instructions, agree to support, in its essential
features as above given, the British proposal, and, with some
reservations, the code proposed by the Russians.

Among the things named by the Russians as subjects which the
agreeing powers must submit to arbitration, are those relating to
river navigation and international canals; and this, in view of
our present difficulties in Alaska and in the matter of the
Isthmus Canal, we can hardly agree to. During the morning Sir
Julian came in and talked over our plan of arbitration as well as
his own and that submitted by Russia. He said that he had seen M.
de Staal, and that it was agreed between them that the latter
should send Sir Julian, at the first moment possible, an
amalgamation of the Russian and British plans, and this Sir
Julian promised that he would bring to us, giving us a chance to
insert any features from our own plan which, in our judgment,
might be important. He seemed much encouraged, as we all are.

Returning to our rooms, I found Count Munster. As usual, he was
very interesting; and, after discussing sundry features of the
Russian plan, he told one or two rather good stories. He said
that during his stay in St Petersburg as minister, early in the
reign of Alexander II, he had a very serious quarrel with Prince
Gortchakoff the minister of foreign affairs, who afterward became
the famous chancellor of the empire.

Count Munster had received one day from a professor at Gottingen
a letter stating that a young German savant, traveling for
scientific purposes in Russia, had been seized and treated as a
prisoner, without any proper cause whatever; that, while he was
engaged in his peaceful botanizing, a police officer, who was
taking a gang of criminals to Siberia, had come along, and one of
his prisoners having escaped, this officer, in order to avoid
censure, had seized the young savant, quietly clapped the number
of the missing man on his back, put him in with the gang of
prisoners, and carried him off along with the rest; so that he
was now held as a convict in Siberia. The count put the letter in
his pocket, thinking that he might have an opportunity to use it,
and a day or two afterward his chance came. Walking on the quay,
he met the Emperor (Alexander II), who greeted him heartily, and
said, "Let me walk with you." After walking and talking some
time, the count told the story of the young German, whereupon the
Emperor asked for proofs of its truth. At this Munster pulled the
letter out of his pocket; and, both having seated themselves on a
bench at the side of the walk, the Emperor read it. On finishing
it, the Emperor said: "Such a thing as this can happen only in
Russia." That very afternoon he sent a special police squad,
post-haste, all the way to Siberia, ordering them to find the
young German and bring him back to St. Petersburg.

Next day Count Munster called at the Foreign Office on current
business, when Gortchakoff came at him in a great rage, asking
him by what right he communicated directly with the Emperor; and
insisting that he had no business to give a letter directly to
the Emperor, that it ought to have gone through the Foreign
Office. Gortchakoff reproached the count bitterly for this
departure from elementary diplomatic etiquette. At this Munster
replied: "I gave the letter to the Emperor because he asked me
for it, and I did not give it to you because I knew perfectly
well that you would pigeonhole it and the Emperor would never
hear of it. I concede much in making any answer at all to your
talk, which seems to me of a sort not usual between gentlemen."
At this Gortchakoff was much milder, and finally almost
obsequious, becoming apparently one of Munster's devoted friends,
evidently thinking that, as Munster had gained the confidence of
the Emperor, he was a man to be cultivated.

The sequel to the story was also interesting. The policemen,
after their long journey to Siberia, found the young German and
brought him to St. Petersburg, where the Emperor received him
very cordially and gave him twenty thousand rubles as an
indemnity for the wrong done him. The young savant told Munster
that he had not been badly treated, that he had been assigned a
very pleasant little cottage, and had perfect freedom to pursue
his scientific researches.

On my talking with the count about certain Russian abuses, and
maintaining that Russia, at least in court circles, had improved
greatly under Alexander III as regarded corruption, he said that
he feared she was now going back, and he then repeated a remark
made by the old Grand Duke Michael, brother of Alexander II, who
said that if any Russian were intrusted with the official care of
a canary he would immediately set up and maintain a coach and
pair out of it.

At six o'clock our American delegation met and heard reports,
especially from Captain Mahan and Captain Crozier, with reference
to the doings in the subcommittees. Captain Mahan reported that
he had voted against forbidding asphyxiating bombs, etc.,
evidently with the idea that such a provision would prove to be
rather harmful than helpful to the cause of peace.

Captain Crozier reported that his subcommittee of committee No. 2
had, at its recent meeting, tried to take up the exemption of
private property from seizure on the high seas in time of war,
but had been declared out of order by the chairman, De Martens,
the leading Russian delegate, who seems determined to prevent the
subject coming before the conference. The question before our
American delegation now was, Shall we try to push this American
proposal before the subcommittee of the second committee, or
before the entire conference at a later period? and the general
opinion was in favor of the latter course. It was not thought
best to delay the arbitration plan by its introduction at
present.

In the evening dined with Minister Newel, and had a very
interesting talk with Van Karnebeek, who had already favorably
impressed me by his clear-headedness and straightforwardness;
also with Messrs. Asser, member of the Dutch Council of State,
and Rahusen, member of the Upper Chamber of the States General,
both of whom are influential delegates.

All three of these men spoke strongly in favor of our plan for
the exemption of private property on the high seas, Van Karnebeek
with especial earnestness. He said that, looking merely at the
material interests of the Netherlands, he might very well favor
the retention of the present system, since his country is little
likely to go into war, and is certain to profit by the carrying
trade in case of any conflict between the great powers; that, of
course, under such circumstances, a large amount of commerce
would come to Holland as a neutral power; but that it was a
question of right and of a proper development of international
law, and that he, as well as the two other gentlemen above named,
was very earnestly in favor of joint action by the powers who are
in favor of our proposal. He thought that the important thing
just now is to secure the cooperation of Germany, which seems to
be at the parting of the ways, and undecided which to take.

In the course of the evening one of my European colleagues, who
is especially familiar with the inner history of the calling of
the conference, told me that the reason why Professor Stengel was
made a delegate was not that he wrote the book in praise of war
and depreciating arbitration, which caused his appointment to be
so unfavorably commented upon, but because, as an eminent
professor of international law, he represented Bavaria; and that
as Bavaria, though represented at St. Petersburg, was not
invited, it was thought very essential that a well-known man from
that kingdom should be put into the general German delegation.

On my asking why Brazil, though represented at St. Petersburg,
was not invited, he answered that Brazil was invited, but showed
no desire to be represented. On my asking him if he supposed this
was because other South American powers were not invited, he said
that he thought not; that it was rather its own indifference and
carelessness, arising from the present unfortunate state of
government in that country. On my saying that the Emperor Dom
Pedro, in his time, would have taken the opportunity to send a
strong delegation, he said: "Yes, he certainly would have done
so; but the present government is a poor sort of thing."

I also had a talk with one of the most eminent publicists of the
Netherlands, on the questions dividing parties in this country,
telling him that I found it hard to understand the line of
cleavage between them. He answered that it is, in the main, a
line between religious conservatives and liberals; the
conservatives embracing the Roman Catholics and high orthodox
Protestants, and the liberals those of more advanced opinions. He
said that socialism plays no great part in Holland; that the
number of its representatives is very small compared with that in
many European states; that the questions on which parties divide
are mainly those in which clerical ideas are more or less
prominent; that the liberal party, if it keeps together, is much
the stronger party of the two, but that it suffers greatly from
its cliques and factions.

On returning home after dinner, I found a cipher despatch from
the Secretary of State informing us that President McKinley
thinks that our American commission ought not to urge any
proposal for "seconding powers"; that he fears lest it may block
the way of the arbitration proposals. This shows that imperfect
reports have reached the President and his cabinet. The fact is
that the proposal of "seconding powers" was warmly welcomed by
the subcommittee when it was presented; that the members very
generally telegraphed home to their governments, and at once
received orders to support it; that it was passed by a unanimous
vote of the subcommittee; and that its strongest advocates were
the men who are most in favor of an arbitration plan. So far from
injuring the prospects of arbitration, it has increased them; it
is very generally spoken of as a victory for our delegation, and
has increased respect for our country, and for anything we may
hereafter present.

June 2.

This morning we sent a cipher telegram to the Secretary of State,
embodying the facts above stated.

The shoals of telegrams, reports of proceedings of societies,
hortatory letters, crankish proposals, and peace pamphlets from
America continue. One of the telegrams which came late last night
was pathetic; it declared that three millions of Christian
Endeavorers bade us "Godspeed," etc., etc.

During the morning De Martens, Low, Holls, and myself had a very
thoroughgoing discussion of the Russian, British, and American
arbitration plans. We found the eminent Russian under very
curious misapprehensions regarding some minor points, one of them
being that he had mistaken the signification of our word
"publicist"; and we were especially surprised to find his use of
the French word "publiciste" so broad that it would include M.
Henri Rochefort, Mr. Stead, or any newspaper writer; and he was
quite as surprised to find that with us it would include only
such men as Grotius, Wheaton, Calvo, and himself.

After a long and intricate discussion we separated on very good
terms, having made, I think, decided progress toward fusing all
three arbitration plans into one which shall embody the merits of
all.

One difficulty we found, of which neither our State Department
nor ourselves had been fully aware. Our original plan required
that the judges for the arbitration tribunal should be nominated
by the highest courts of the respective nations; but De Martens
showed us that Russia has no highest court in our sense of the
word. Then, too, there is Austria-Hungary, which has two supreme
courts of equal authority. This clause, therefore, we arranged to
alter, though providing that the original might stand as regards
countries possessing supreme courts.

At lunch we had Baron de Bildt, Swedish minister at Rome and
chief of the Swedish delegation at the conference, and Baron de
Bille, Danish minister at London and chief delegate from Denmark.
De Bille declared himself averse to a permanent tribunal to be in
constant session, on the ground that, having so little to do, it
would be in danger of becoming an object of derision to the press
and peoples of the world.

We were all glad to find, upon the arrival of the London "Times,"
that our arbitration project seemed to be receiving extensive
approval, and various telegrams from America during the day
indicated the same thing.

It looks more and more as if we are to accomplish something. The
only thing in sight calculated to throw a cloud over the future
is the attitude of the German press against the whole business
here; the most virulent in its attacks being the high Lutheran
conservative--and religious!--journal in Berlin, the
"Kreuz-Zeitung." Still, it is pleasant to see that eminent
newspaper find, for a time, some other object of denunciation
than the United States.

June 3.

In the afternoon drove to Scheveningen and took tea with Count
Munster and his daughter. He was somewhat pessimistic, as usual,
but came out very strongly in favor of the American view as
regards exemption of private property on the high seas. Whether
this is really because Germany would derive profit from it, or
because she thinks this question a serviceable entering wedge
between the United States and Great Britain, there is no telling
at present. I am sorry to say that our hopes regarding it are to
be dashed, so far as the present conference is concerned. Sundry
newspaper letters and articles in the "Times" show clearly that
the English Government is strongly opposed to dealing with it
here and now; and as France and Russia take the same position,
there is no hope for any action, save such as we can take to keep
the subject alive and to secure attention to it by some future
conference.

CHAPTER XLVII

AS PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN DELEGATION AT THE PEACE CONFERENCE
OF THE HAGUE: III--1899

June 4.

We have just had an experience which "adds to the gaiety of
nations." Some days since, representatives of what is called "the
Young Turkish party" appeared and asked to be heard. They
received, generally, the cold shoulder, mainly because the
internal condition of Turkey is not one of the things which the
conference was asked to discuss; but also because there is a
suspicion that these "Young Turks" are enabled to live in luxury
at Paris by blackmailing the Sultan, and that their zeal for
reform becomes fervid whenever their funds run low, and cools
whenever a remittance comes from the Bosphorus. But at last some
of us decided to give them a hearing, informally; the main object
being to get rid of them. At the time appointed, the delegation
appeared in evening dress, and, having been ushered into the
room, the spokesman began as follows, very impressively:

"Your Excellencies, ve are ze Young Turkeys."

This was too much for most of us, and I think that, during our
whole stay at The Hague thus far, we have never undertaken
anything more difficult, physically, than to keep our faces
straight during the harangue which followed.

Later, we went with nearly all the other members of the
conference to Haarlem, in a special train, by invitation of the
burgomaster and town council, to the "Fete Hippique" and the
"Fete des Fleurs." We were treated very well indeed, refreshments
being served on the grand stand during the performances, which
consisted of hurdle races, etc., for which I cared nothing,
followed by a procession of peasants in old chaises of various
periods, and in the costumes of the various provinces of the
Netherlands, which interested me much. The whole closed with a
long train of fine equipages superbly decorated with flowers.

Discussing the question of the immunity of private property, not
contraband of war, on the high seas, I find that the main
argument which our opponents are now using is that, even if the
principle were conceded, new and troublesome questions would
arise as to what really constitutes contraband of war; that ships
themselves would undoubtedly be considered as contraband, since
they can be used in conveying troops, coal, supplies, etc.

June 5.

Having given up the morning of the 5th mainly to work on plans of
arbitration, mediation, and the like, I went to the meeting, at
the "House in the Wood," of the third great committee of the
conference--namely, that on arbitration.

The session went off satisfactorily, our duty being to pass upon
the report from the subcommittee which had put the various
propositions into shape for our discussion. The report was
admirably presented by M. Descamps, and, after considerable
discussion of details, was adopted in all essential features. The
matters thus discussed and accepted for presentation to the
conference as a whole related:

(1) To a plan for tendering "good offices."

(2) To a plan for examining into international differences.

(3) To the "special mediation" plan.

The last was exceedingly well received, and our delegation has
obtained much credit for it. It is the plan of allowing any two
nations drifting into war to appoint "seconding nations," who,
like "seconds" in a duel, shall attempt to avert the conflict;
and, if this be unsuccessful, shall continue acting in the same
capacity, and endeavor to arrest the conflict at the earliest
moment possible.

Very general good feeling was shown, and much encouragement
derived from the fact that these preliminary matters could be
dealt with in so amicable and business-like a spirit.

Before the meeting I took a long walk in the garden back of the
palace with various gentlemen, among them Mr. van Karnebeek, who
discussed admirably with me the question of the exemption of
private property from seizure on the high seas. He agreed with me
that even if the extreme doctrine now contended for--namely, that
which makes ships, coal, provisions, and very nearly everything
else, contraband--be pressed, still a first step, such as the
exemption of private property from seizure, would be none the
less wise, leaving the subordinate questions to be dealt with as
they arise.

I afterward called with Dr. Holls at the house of the burgomaster
of The Hague, and thanked him for his kindness in tendering us
the concert last Saturday, and for various other marks of
consideration.

On the whole, matters continue to look encouraging as regards
both mediation and arbitration.

June 6.

In the morning Sir Julian Pauncefote called, and again went over
certain details in the American, British, and Russian plans of
arbitration, discussing some matters to be stricken out and
others to be inserted. He declared his readiness to strike out a
feature of his plan to which from the first, I have felt a very
great objection--namely, that which, after the tribunal is
constituted, allows the contesting parties to call into it and
mix with it persons simply chosen by the contestants ad hoc. This
seems to me a dilution of the idea of a permanent tribunal, and a
means of delay and of complications which may prove unfortunate.
It would certainly be said that if the contestants were to be
allowed to name two or more judges from outside the tribunal,
they might just as well nominate all, and thus save the expense
attendant upon a regularly constituted international court chosen
by the various governments.

Later in the day I wrote a private letter to the Secretary of
State suggesting that our American delegation be authorized to
lay a wreath of silver and gold upon the tomb of Grotius at
Delft, not only as a tribute to the man who set in motion the
ideas which, nearly three hundred years later, have led to the
assembling of this conference, but as an indication of our
gratitude to the Netherlands Government for its hospitality and
the admirable provision it has made for our work here, and also
as a sign of good-will toward the older governments of the world
on the occasion of their first meeting with delegates from the
new world, in a conference treating of matters most important to
all nations.

In the evening to Mr. van Karnebeek's reception, and there met
Mr. Raffalovitch, one of the Russian secretaries of the
conference, who, as councilor of the Russian Empire and
corresponding member of the French Institute, has a European
reputation, and urged him to aid in striking out the clause in
the plan which admits judges other than those of the court. My
hope is that it will disappear in the subcommittee and not come
up in the general meeting of the third great committee.

June 8.

The American delegation in the afternoon discussed at length the
proposals relating to the Brussels Conference rules for the more
humane carrying on of war. Considerable difference of opinion has
arisen in the section of the conference in which the preliminary
debates are held, and Captain Crozier, our representative, has
been in some doubt as to the ground to be taken between these
opposing views. On one side are those who think it best to go at
considerable length into more or less minute restrictions upon
the conduct of invaders and invaded. On the other side, M.
Bernaert of Belgium, one of the two most eminent men from that
country, and others, take the ground that it would be better to
leave the whole matter to the general development of humanity in
international law. M. de Martens insists that now is the time to
settle the matter, rather than leave it to individuals who, in
time of war, are likely to be more or less exasperated by
accounts of atrocities and to have no adequate time for deciding
upon a policy. After considerable discussion by our delegation,
the whole matter went over.

In the evening to a great reception at the house of Sir Henry
Howard, British minister at this court. It was very brilliant,
and the whole afforded an example of John Bull's good sense in
providing for his representatives abroad, and enabling them to
exercise a social influence on the communities where they are
stationed, which rapidly becomes a political influence with the
governments to which they are accredited. Sir Henry is provided
with a large, attractive house, means to entertain amply, and has
been kept in the service long enough to know everybody and to
become experienced in the right way of getting at the men he
wishes to influence, and of doing the things his government needs
to have done. Throughout the whole world this is John Bull's wise
way of doing things. At every capital I have visited, including
Washington, Constantinople, St. Petersburg, Rome, Paris, Berlin,
and Vienna, the British representative is a man who has been
selected with reference to his fitness, kept in the service long
enough to give him useful experience, and provided with a good,
commodious house and the means to exercise social and, therefore,
political influence. The result is that, although, in every
country in the world, orators and editors are always howling at
John Bull, he everywhere has his way: to use our vernacular, he
"gets there," and can laugh in his sleeve at the speeches against
him in public bodies, and at the diatribes against him in
newspapers. The men who are loudest in such attacks are generally
the most delighted to put their legs under the British
ambassador's mahogany, or to take their daughters to his
receptions and balls, and then quietly to follow the general line
of conduct which he favors.

June 9.

In the morning an interesting visit from M. de Staal, president
of the conference. We discussed arbitration plans, Brussels rules
and Geneva rules, and, finally, our social debts to the Dutch
authorities.

As to the general prospects of arbitration, he expressed the
belief that we can, by amalgamating the British, Russian, and
American plans, produce a good result

During the day, many members of the conference having gone to
Rotterdam to see the welcoming of the Queen in that city, I took
up, with especial care, the Brussels rules for the conduct of
war, and the amendments of them now proposed in the conference,
some of which have provoked considerable debate. The more I read
the proposals now made, the more admirable most of them seem to
be, and the more it seems to me that we ought, with a few
exceptions, to adopt them. Great Britain declines to sanction
them as part of international law, but still agrees to adopt them
as a general basis for her conduct in time of war; and even this
would be a good thing for us, if we cannot induce our government
to go to the length of making them fully binding.

At six o'clock Dr. Holls, who represents us upon the subcommittee
on arbitration, came in with most discouraging news. It now
appears that the German Emperor is determined to oppose the whole
scheme of arbitration, and will have nothing to do with any plan
for a regular tribunal, whether as given in the British or the
American scheme. This news comes from various sources, and is
confirmed by the fact that, in the subcommittee, one of the
German delegates, Professor Zorn of Konigsberg, who had become
very earnest in behalf of arbitration, now says that he may not
be able to vote for it. There are also signs that the German
Emperor is influencing the minds of his allies--the sovereigns of
Austria, Italy, Turkey, and Roumania--leading them to oppose it.

Curiously enough, in spite of this, Count Nigra, the Italian
ambassador at Vienna and head of the Italian delegation, made a
vigorous speech showing the importance of the work in which the
committee is engaged, urging that the plan be perfected, and
seeming to indicate that he will go on with the representatives
who favor it. This, coming from perhaps the most earnest ally of
Germany, is noteworthy.

At the close of the session Sir Julian Pauncefote informed Dr.
Holls that he was about to telegraph his government regarding the
undoubted efforts of the German Emperor upon the sovereigns above
named, and I decided to cable our State Department, informing
them fully as to this change in the condition of affairs.

At eight went to the dinner of our minister, Mr. Newel and found
there three ambassadors, De Staal, Munster, and Pauncefote, as
well as M. Leon Bourgeois, president of the French delegation;
Sir Henry Howard, the British minister; Baron de Bildt, the
Swedish minister; and some leading Netherlands statesmen. Had a
long talk with M. de Staal and with Sir Julian Pauncefote
regarding the state of things revealed this afternoon in the
subcommittee on arbitration. M. de Staal has called a meeting of
the heads of delegations for Saturday afternoon. Both he and Sir
Julian are evidently much vexed by the unfortunate turn things
have taken. The latter feels, as I do, that the only thing to be
done is to go on and make the plan for arbitration as perfect as
possible, letting those of the powers who are willing to do so
sign it. I assured him and De Staal that we of the United States
would stand by them to the last in the matter.

Late in the evening went to a reception of M. de Beaufort, the
Netherlands minister of foreign affairs, and discussed current
matters with various people, among them Count Nigra, whom I
thanked for his eloquent speech in the afternoon, and Baron de
Bildt, who feels as I do, that the right thing for us is to go
on, no matter who falls away.

June 10.

This morning I gave to studies of the various reports sent in
from the subcommittees, especially those on arbitration and on
the Brussels Conference rules. Both have intensely interested me,
my main attention being, of course, centered on the former; but
the Brussels rules seem to me of much greater importance now than
at first, and my hope is that we shall not only devise a good
working plan of arbitration, but greatly humanize the laws of
war.

At four o'clock in the afternoon met the four other ambassadors
and two or three other heads of delegations, at the rooms of M.
de Staal, to discuss the question of relaxing the rules of
secrecy as regards the proceedings of committees, etc. The whole
original Russian plan of maintaining absolute secrecy has
collapsed, just as the representatives from constitutional
countries in the beginning said it would. Every day there are
published minute accounts in Dutch, French, and English journals
which show that, in some way, their representatives obtain enough
information to enable them, with such additional things as they
can imagine, to make readable reports. The result is that various
gentlemen in the conference who formerly favored a policy of
complete secrecy find themselves credited with speeches which
they did not make, and which they dislike to be considered
capable of making.

After a great deal of talk, it was decided to authorize the
chairman of each committee to give to the press complete reports,
so far as possible, keeping in the background the part taken by
individuals.

At six the American delegation met, and the subject of our
instructions regarding the presentation of the American view of
the immunity of private property on the high seas in time of war
was taken up. It was decided to ask some of the leading
supporters of this view to meet us at luncheon at 12.30 on
Monday, in order to discuss the best way of overcoming the
Russian plan of suppressing the matter, and to concert means for
getting the whole subject before the full conference.

June 11.

Instead of going to hear the Bishop of Hereford preach on
"Peace," I walked with Dr. Holls to Scheveningen, four miles, to
work off a nervous headache and to invite Count Munster to our
luncheon on Monday, when we purpose to take counsel together
regarding private property on the high seas. He accepted, but was
out of humor with nearly all the proceedings of the conference.
He is more than ever opposed to arbitration, and declares that,
in view of the original Russian programme under which we were
called to meet, we have no right to take it up at all, since it
was not mentioned. He was decidedly pessimistic regarding the
continuance of the sessions, asking me when I thought it would
all end; and on my answering that I had not the slightest idea,
he said that he was entirely in the dark on the subject; that
nobody could tell how long it would last, or how it would break
off.

June 12.

At half-past twelve came our American luncheon to Count Munster,
Mr. van Karnebeek, and Baron de Bildt, each of whom is at the
head of his delegation,--our purpose being to discuss with them
the best manner of getting the subject of immunity of private
property at sea, not contraband, before the conference, these
gentlemen being especially devoted to such a measure.

All went off very well, full interchange of views took place, and
the general opinion was that the best way would be for us, as the
only delegation instructed on the subject, to draw up a formal
memorial asking that the question be brought before the
conference, and sending this to M. de Staal as our president.

Curious things came out during our conversation Baron de Bildt
informed me that, strongly as he favored the measure, and
prepared as he was to vote for it, he should have to be very
careful in discussing it publicly, since his instructions were to
avoid, just as far as possible, any clash between the opinions
expressed by the Swedish representatives and those of the great
powers. Never before have I so thoroughly realized the difficult
position which the lesser powers in Europe hold as regards really
serious questions.

More surprising was the conversation of Count Munster, he being
on one side of me and Mr. van Karnebeek on the other. Bearing in
mind that the Emperor William during his long talk with me just
before I left Berlin in referring to the approaching Peace
Congress had said that he was sending Count Munster because what
the conference would most need would be "common sense," and
because, in his opinion, Count Munster had "lots of it," some of
the count's utterances astonished me. He now came out, as he did
the day before in his talk with me, utterly against arbitration,
declaring it a "humbug," and that we had no right to consider it,
since it was not mentioned in the first proposals from Russia,
etc., etc.

A little later, something having been said about telegraphs and
telephones, he expressed his belief that they are a curse as
regards the relations between nations; that they interfere with
diplomacy, and do more harm than good. This did not especially
surprise me, for I had heard the same opinions uttered by others;
but what did surprise me greatly was to hear him say, when the
subject of bacteria and microbes was casually mentioned, that
they were "all a modern humbug."

It is clear that, with all his fine qualities,--and he is really
a splendid specimen of an old-fashioned German nobleman devoted
to the diplomatic service of his country, --he is saturated with
the ideas of fifty years ago.

Returning from a drive to Scheveningen with Major Burbank of the
United States army, I sketched the first part of a draft for a
letter from our delegation to M. de Staal, and at our meeting at
six presented it, when it met with general approval. President
Low had also sketched a draft which it was thought could be
worked very well into the one which I had offered, and so we two
were made a subcommittee to prepare the letter in full.

June 13.

This morning come more disquieting statements regarding Germany.
There seems no longer any doubt that the German Emperor is
opposing arbitration, and, indeed, the whole work of the
conference, and that he will insist on his main allies, Austria
and Italy, going with him. Count Nigra, who is personally devoted
to arbitration, allowed this in talking with Dr. Holls; and the
German delegates--all of whom, with the exception of Count
Munster, are favorably inclined to a good arbitration plan--show
that they are disappointed.

I had learned from a high imperial official, before I left
Berlin, that the Emperor considered arbitration as derogatory to
his sovereignty, and I was also well aware, from his
conversation, that he was by no means in love with the conference
idea; but, in view of his speech at Wiesbaden, and the petitions
which had come in to him from Bavaria, I had hoped that he had
experienced a "change of heart."

Possibly he might have changed his opinion had not Count Munster
been here, reporting to him constantly against every step taken
by the conference.

There seems danger of a catastrophe. Those of us who are faithful
to arbitration plans will go on and do the best we can; but there
is no telling what stumbling-blocks Germany and her allies may
put in our way; and, of course, the whole result, without their
final agreement, will seem to the world a failure and, perhaps, a
farce.

The immediate results will be that the Russian Emperor will
become an idol of the "plain people" throughout the world, the
German Emperor will be bitterly hated, and the socialists, who
form the most dreaded party on the continent of Europe, will be
furnished with a thoroughly effective weapon against their
rulers.

Some days since I said to a leading diplomatist here, "The
ministers of the German Emperor ought to tell him that, should he
oppose arbitration, there will be concentrated upon him an amount
of hatred which no minister ought to allow a sovereign to incur."
To this he answered, "That is true; but there is not a minister
in Germany who dares tell him."

June 14.

This noon our delegation gave a breakfast to sundry members of
the conference who are especially interested in an effective plan
of arbitration, the principal of these being Count Nigra from
Italy; Count Welsersheimb, first delegate of Austria; M. Descamps
of Belgium; Baron d'Estournelles of France; and M. Asser of the
Netherlands. After some preliminary talk, I read to them the
proposal, which Sir Julian had handed me in the morning, for the
purpose of obviating the objection to the council of
administration in charge of the court of arbitration here in The
Hague, which was an important feature of his original plan, but
which had been generally rejected as involving expensive
machinery. His proposal now is that, instead of a council
specially appointed and salaried to watch over and provide for
the necessities of the court, such council shall simply be made
up of the ministers of sundry powers residing here,--thus doing
away entirely with the trouble and expense of a special council.

This I amended by adding the Netherlands minister of foreign
affairs as ex-officio president, there being various reasons for
this, and among these the fact that, without some such provision,
the Netherlands would have no representative in the council.

The plan and my amendment were well received, and I trust that
our full and friendly discussion of these and various matters
connected with them will produce a good effect in the committees.

Count Nigra expressed himself to me as personally most earnestly
in favor of arbitration, but it was clear that his position was
complicated by the relations of his country to Germany as one of
the Triple Alliance; and the same difficulty was observable in
the case of Count Welsersheimb, the representative of Austria,
the third ally in the combination of which Germany is the head.

In the course of our breakfast, Baron d'Estournelles made a
statement which I think impressed every person present. It was
that, as he was leaving Paris, Jaures, the famous socialist, whom
he knows well, said to him, "Go on; do all you can at The Hague,
but you will labor in vain: you can accomplish nothing there,
your schemes will fail, and we shall triumph," or words to that
effect. So clear an indication as this of the effect which a
failure of the conference to produce a good scheme of arbitration
will have in promoting the designs of the great international
socialist and anarchist combinations cannot fail to impress every
thinking man.

Dined in the evening with the French minister at this court, and
very pleasantly. There were present M. Leon Bourgeois, the French
first delegate, and the first delegates from Japan, China,
Mexico, and Turkey, with subordinate delegates from other
countries. Sitting next the lady at the right of the host, I
found her to be the wife of the premier, M. Piersoon, minister of
finance, and very agreeable. I took in to dinner Madame Behrends,
wife of the Russian charge, evidently a very thoughtful and
accomplished woman, who was born, as she told me, of English
parents in the city of New York when her father and mother were
on their way to England. I found her very interesting, and her
discussions of Russia, as well as of England and the Netherlands,
especially good.

In the smoking-room I had a long talk with M. Leon Bourgeois,
who, according to the papers, is likely to be appointed minister
of foreign affairs in the new French cabinet. He dwelt upon the
difficulties of any plan for a tribunal, but seemed ready to do
what he could for the compromise plan, which is all that, during
some time past, we have hoped to adopt.

June 15.

Early this morning Count Munster called, wishing to see me
especially, and at once plunged into the question of the immunity
of private property from seizure on the high seas. He said that
he had just received instructions from his government to join us
heartily in bringing the question before the conference; that his
government, much as it inclines to favor the principle, could not
yet see its way to commit itself fully; that its action must, of
course, depend upon the conduct of other powers in the matter, as
foreshadowed by discussions in the conference, but that he was to
aid us in bringing it up.

I told him I was now preparing a draft of a memorial to the
conference giving the reasons why the subject ought to be
submitted, and that he should have it as soon as completed.

This matter being for the time disposed of, we took up the state
of the arbitration question, and the consequences of opposition
by Germany and her two allies to every feasible plan.

He was very much in earnest, and declared especially against
compulsory arbitration. To this I answered that the plan thus far
adopted contemplated entirely voluntary arbitration, with the
exception that an obligatory system was agreed upon as regards
sundry petty matters in which arbitration would assist all the
states concerned; and that if he disliked this latter feature,
but would agree to the others, we would go with him in striking
it out, though we should vastly prefer to retain it.

He said, "Yes; you have already stricken out part of it in the
interest of the United States," referring to the features
concerning the Monroe Doctrine, the regulation of canals, rivers,
etc.

"Very true," I answered; "and if there are any special features
which affect unfavorably German policy or interests, move to
strike them out, and we will heartily support you."

He then dwelt in his usual manner on his special hobby, which is
that modern nations are taking an entirely false route in
preventing the settlement of their difficulties by trained
diplomatists, and intrusting them to arbitration by men
inexperienced in international matters, who really cannot be
unprejudiced or uninfluenced; and he spoke with especial contempt
of the plan for creating a bureau, composed, as he said, of
university professors and the like, to carry on the machinery of
the tribunal.

Here I happened to have a trump card. I showed him Sir Julian
Pauncefote's plan to substitute a council composed of all the
ministers of the signatory powers residing at The Hague, with my
amendment making the Dutch minister of foreign affairs its
president. This he read and said he liked it; in fact, it seemed
to remove a mass of prejudice from his mind.

I then spoke very earnestly to him--more so than ever
before--about the present condition of affairs. I told him that
the counselors in whom the Emperor trusted--such men as himself
and the principal advisers of his Majesty--ought never to allow
their young sovereign to be exposed to the mass of hatred,
obloquy, and opposition which would converge upon him from all
nations in case he became known to the whole world as the
sovereign who had broken down the conference and brought to
naught the plan of arbitration. I took the liberty of telling him
what the Emperor said to me regarding the count himself--namely,
that what the conference was most likely to need was good common
sense, and that he was sending Count Munster because he possessed
that. This seemed to please him, and I then went on to say that
he of all men ought to prevent, by all means, placing the young
Emperor in such a position. I dwelt on the gifts and graces of
the young sovereign, expressed my feeling of admiration for his
noble ambitions, for his abilities, for the statesmanship he had
recently shown, for his grasp of public affairs, and for his way
of conciliating all classes, and then dwelt on the pity of making
such a monarch an object of hatred in all parts of the world.

He seemed impressed by this, but said the calling of the
conference was simply a political trick--the most detestable
trick ever practised. It was done, he said mainly to embarrass
Germany, to glorify the young Russian Emperor, and to put Germany
and nations which Russia dislikes into a false position. To this
I answered, "If this be the case, why not trump the Russian
trick? or, as the poker-players say, 'Go them one better,' take
them at their word, support a good tribunal of arbitration more
efficient even than the Russians have dared to propose; let your
sovereign throw himself heartily into the movement and become a
recognized leader and power here; we will all support him, and to
him will come the credit of it.

"Then, in addition to this, support us as far as you can as
regards the immunity of private property on the high seas, and
thus you will gain another great point; for, owing to her
relations to France, Russia has not dared commit herself to this
principle as otherwise she doubtless would have done, but, on the
contrary, has opposed any consideration of it by the conference.

"Next, let attention be called to the fact--and we will gladly
aid in making the world fully aware of it--that Germany, through
you, has constantly urged the greatest publicity of our
proceedings, while certain other powers have insisted on secrecy
until secrecy has utterly broken down, and then have made the
least concession possible. In this way you will come out of the
conference triumphant, and the German Emperor will be looked upon
as, after all, the arbiter of Europe. Everybody knows that France
has never wished arbitration, and that Russian statesmen are
really, at heart, none too ardent for it. Come forward, then, and
make the matter thoroughly your own; and, having done this,
maintain your present attitude strongly as regards the two other
matters above named,--that is, the immunity from seizure of
private property on the high seas, and the throwing open of our
proceedings,--and the honors of the whole conference is yours."

He seemed impressed by all this, and took a different tone from
any which has been noted in him since we came together. I then
asked him if he had heard Baron d'Estournelles's story. He said
that he had not. I told it to him, as given in my diary
yesterday; and said, "You see there what the failure to obtain a
result which is really so much longed for by all the peoples of
the world will do to promote the designs of the socialistic
forces which are so powerful in all parts of the Continent, and
nowhere more so than in Germany and the nations allied with her."

This, too, seemed to impress him. I then went on to say, "This is
not all. By opposing arbitration, you not only put a club into
the hands of socialists, anarchists, and all the other
anti-social forces, but you alienate the substantial middle class
and the great body of religious people in all nations. You have
no conception of the depth of feeling on this subject which
exists in my own country, to say nothing of others; and if
Germany stands in the way, the distrust of her which Americans
have felt, and which as minister and ambassador at Berlin I have
labored so hard to dispel, will be infinitely increased. It will
render more and more difficult the maintenance of proper
relations between the two countries. Your sovereign will be
looked upon as the enemy of all nations, and will be exposed to
every sort of attack and calumny, while the young Emperor of
Russia will become a popular idol throughout the world, since he
will represent to the popular mind, and even to the minds of
great bodies of thinking and religious people, the effort to
prevent war and to solve public questions as much as possible
without bloodshed; while the Emperor of Germany will represent to
their minds the desire to solve all great questions by force.
Mind, I don't say this is a just view: I only say that it is the
view sure to be taken, and that by resisting arbitration here you
are playing the game of Russia, as you yourself have stated
it--that is, you are giving Russia the moral support of the whole
world at the expense of the neighboring powers, and above all of
Germany."

I then took up an argument which, it is understood, has had much
influence with the Emperor,--namely, that arbitration must be in
derogation of his sovereignty,--and asked, "How can any such
derogation be possible? Your sovereign would submit only such
questions to the arbitration tribunal as he thought best; and,
more than all that, you have already committed yourselves to the
principle. You are aware that Bismarck submitted the question of
the Caroline Islands for arbitration to the Pope, and the first
Emperor William consented to act as arbiter between the United
States and Great Britain in the matter of the American
northwestern boundary. How could arbitration affect the true
position of the sovereign? Take, for example, matters as they now
stand between Germany and the United States. There is a vast mass
of petty questions which constantly trouble the relations between
the two countries. These little questions embitter debates,
whether in your Reichstag on one hand, or in our Congress on the
other, and make the position of the Berlin and Washington
governments especially difficult. The American papers attack me
because I yield too much to Germany, the German papers attack Von
Bulow because he yields too much to America, and these little
questions remain. If Von Bulow and I were allowed to sit down and
settle them, we could do so at short notice; but behind him
stands the Reichstag, and behind our Secretary of State and
myself stands the American Congress."

I referred to such questions as the tonnage dues, the additional
tariff on bounty-promoted sugar, Samoa, the most-favored-nation
clause, in treaties between Germany and the United States, in
relation to the same clause in sundry treaties between the United
States and other powers, and said, "What a blessing it would be
if all these questions, of which both governments are tired, and
which make the more important questions constantly arising
between the two countries so difficult to settle, could be sent
at once to a tribunal and decided one way or the other! In
themselves they amount to little. It is not at all unlikely that
most of them--possibly all of them--would be decided in favor of
Germany; but the United States would acquiesce at once in the
decision by a tribunal such as is proposed. And this is just what
would take place between Germany and other nations. A mass of
vexatious questions would be settled by the tribunal, and the
sovereign and his government would thus be relieved from
parliamentary chicanery based, not upon knowledge, but upon party
tactics or personal grudges or inherited prejudices."

He seemed now more inclined to give weight to these
considerations, and will, I hope, urge his government to take a
better view than that which for some time past has seemed to be
indicated by the conduct of its representatives here.

In the afternoon I went to the five-o'clock tea of the Baroness
d'Estournelles, found a great crowd there, including the leading
delegates, and all anxious as to the conduct of Germany. Meeting
the Baroness von Suttner who has been writing such earnest books
in behalf of peace, I urged her to write with all her might to
influence public prints in Austria, Italy, and Germany in behalf
of arbitration, telling her that we are just arriving at the
parting of the ways, and that everything possible must be done
now, or all may be lost. To this she responded very heartily, and
I have no doubt will use her pen with much effect.

In the evening went to a great reception at the house of the
Austrian ambassador, M. Okolicsanyi. There was a crush. Had a
long talk with Mr. Stead, telling him D'Estournelles's story, and
urging him to use it in every way to show what a boon the failure
of arbitration would be to the anti-social forces in all parts of
Europe.

In the intervals during the day I busied myself in completing the
memorial to the conference regarding the immunity from seizure of
private property at sea. If we cannot secure it now, we must at
least pave the way for its admission by a future international
conference.

CHAPTER XLVIII

AS PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN DELEGATION AT THE PEACE CONFERENCE
OF THE HAGUE: IV--1899

June 16. This morning Count Munster called and seemed much
excited by the fact that he had received a despatch from Berlin
in which the German Government--which, of course, means the
Emperor--had strongly and finally declared against everything
like an arbitration tribunal. He was clearly disconcerted by this
too literal acceptance of his own earlier views, and said that he
had sent to M. de Staal insisting that the meeting of the
subcommittee on arbitration, which had been appointed for this
day (Friday), should be adjourned on some pretext until next
Monday; "for," said he, "if the session takes place to-day, Zorn
must make the declaration in behalf of Germany which these new
instructions order him to make, and that would be a misfortune."
I was very glad to see this evidence of change of heart in the
count, and immediately joined him in securing the adjournment he
desired. The meeting of the subcommittee has therefore been
deferred, the reason assigned, as I understand, being that Baron
d'Estournelles is too much occupied to be present at the time
first named. Later Count Munster told me that he had decided to
send Professor Zorn to Berlin at once in order to lay the whole
matter before the Foreign Office and induce the authorities to
modify the instructions. I approved this course strongly,
whereupon he suggested that I should do something to the same
purpose, and this finally ended in the agreement that Holls
should go with Zorn.

In view of the fact that Von Bulow had agreed that the German
delegates should stand side by side with us in the conference, I
immediately prepared a letter of introduction and a personal
letter to Bulow for Holls to take, and he started about five in
the afternoon. This latter is as follows:                       
                  
(Copy.) (Personal.)

                                               June 16, 1899
DEAR BARON VON BULOW:

I trust that, in view of the kindly relations which exist between
us, succeeding as they do similar relations begun twenty years
ago with your honored father, you will allow me to write you
informally, but fully and frankly, regarding the interests of
both our governments in the peace conference. The relations
between your delegates and ours have, from the first, been of the
kindest; your assurances on this point have been thoroughly
carried out. But we seem now to be at "the parting of the ways,"
and on the greatest question submitted to us,--the greatest, as I
believe, that any conference or any congress has taken up in our
time,--namely, the provision for a tribunal of arbitration.

It is generally said here that Germany is opposed to the whole
thing, that she is utterly hostile to anything like arbitration,
and that she will do all in her power, either alone or through
her allies, to thwart every feasible plan of providing for a
tribunal which shall give some hope to the world of settling some
of the many difficulties between nations otherwise than by
bloodshed.

No rational man here expects all wars to be ended by anything
done here; no one proposes to submit to any such tribunal
questions involving the honor of any nation or the inviolability
of its territory, or any of those things which nations feel
instinctively must be reserved for their own decision. Nor does
any thinking man here propose obligatory arbitration in any case,
save, possibly, in sundry petty matters where such arbitration
would be a help to the ordinary administration of all
governments; and, even as to these, they can be left out of the
scheme if your government seriously desires it.

The great thing is that there be a provision made or easily
calling together a court of arbitration which shall be seen of
all nations, indicate a sincere desire to promote peace, and, in
some measure, relieve the various peoples of the fear which so
heavily oppresses them all--the dread of an outburst of war at
any moment.

I note that it has been believed by many that the motives of
Russia in proposing this conference were none too good,--indeed,
that they were possibly perfidious; but, even if this be granted,
how does this affect the conduct of Germany? Should it not rather
lead Germany to go forward boldly and thoughtfully, to accept the
championship of the idea of arbitration, and to take the lead in
the whole business here?

Germany, if she will do this, will certainly stand before the
whole world as the leading power of Europe; for she can then say
to the whole world that she has taken the proposal of Russia au
serieux; has supported a thoroughly good plan of arbitration; has
done what Russia and France have not been willing to do,--favored
the presentation to the conference of a plan providing for the
immunity of private property from seizure on the high seas during
war,--and that while, as regards the proceedings of the
conference, Russia has wished secrecy, Germany has steadily, from
the first, promoted frankness and openness.

With these three points in your favor, you can stand before the
whole world as the great Continental power which has stood up f
or peace as neither Russia nor France has been able to do. On the
other hand, if you do not do this, if you put a stumbling-block
in the way of arbitration, what results? The other powers will go
on and create as good a tribunal as possible, and whatever
failure may come will be imputed to Germany and to its Emperor.
In any case, whether failure or success may come, the Emperor of
Russia will be hailed in all parts of the world as a deliverer
and, virtually, as a saint, while there will be a wide-spread
outburst of hatred against the German Emperor.

And this will come not alone from the anti-social forces which
are hoping that the conference may fail, in order that thereby
they may have a new weapon in their hands, but it will also come
from the middle and substantial classes of other nations.

It is sure to make the relations between Germany and the United
States, which have been of late improving infinitely more bitter
than they have ever before been and it is no less sure to provoke
the most bitter hatred of the German monarchy in nearly all other
nations.

Should his advisers permit so noble and so gifted a sovereign to
incur this political storm of obloquy, this convergence of hatred
upon him? Should a ruler of such noble ambitions and such
admirable powers be exposed to this? I fully believe that he
should not, and that his advisers should beg him not to place
himself before the world as the antagonist of a plan to which
millions upon millions in all parts of the world are devoted.

From the United States come evidences of a feeling wide-spread
and deep on this subject beyond anything I have ever known. This
very morning I received a prayer set forth by the most
conservative of all Protestant religious bodies--namely, the
American branch of the Anglican Church--to be said in all
churches, begging the Almighty to favor the work of the peace
conference; and this is what is going on in various other
American churches, and in vast numbers of households. Something
of the same sort is true in Great Britain and, perhaps in many
parts of the Continent.

Granted that expectations are overwrought, still this fact
indicates that here is a feeling which cannot be disregarded.

Moreover, to my certain knowledge, within a month, a leading
socialist in France has boasted to one of the members of this
conference that it would end in failure; that the monarchs and
governments of Europe do not wish to diminish bloodshed; that
they would refuse to yield to the desire of the peoples for
peace, and that by the resentment thus aroused a new path to
victory would be open to socialism.

Grant, too, that this is overstated, still such a declaration is
significant.

I know it has been said that arbitration is derogatory to
sovereignty. I really fail to see how this can be said in
Germany. Germany has already submitted a great political question
between herself and Spain to arbitration, and the Emperor William
I was himself the arbiter between the United States and Great
Britain in the matter of our northwestern boundary.

Bear in mind again that it is only VOLUNTARY arbitration that is
proposed, and that it will always rest with the German Emperor to
decide what questions he will submit to the tribunal and what he
will not.

It has also been said that arbitration proceedings would give the
enemies of Germany time to put themselves in readiness for war;
but if this be feared in any emergency, the Emperor and his
government are always free to mobilize the German army at once.

As you are aware, what is seriously proposed here now, in the way
of arbitration, is not a tribunal constantly in session, but a
system under which each of the signatory powers shall be free to
choose, for a limited time, from an international court, say two
or more judges who can go to The Hague if their services are
required, but to be paid only while actually in session here;
such payment to be made by the litigating parties.

As to the machinery, the plan is that there shall be a dignified
body composed of the diplomatic representatives of the various
signatory powers, to sit at The Hague, presided over by the
Netherlands minister of foreign affairs, and to select and to
control such secretaries and officers as may be necessary for the
ordinary conduct of affairs.

Such council would receive notice from powers having differences
with each other which are willing to submit the questions between
them to a court, and would then give notice to the judges
selected by the parties. The whole of the present plan, except
some subordinate features of little account, which can easily be
stricken out, is voluntary. There is nothing whatever obligatory
about it. Every signatory power is free to resort to such a
tribunal or not, as it may think best. Surely a concession like
this may well be made to the deep and wide sentiment throughout
the world in favor of some possible means of settling
controversies between nations other than by bloodshed.

Pardon me for earnestly pressing upon you these facts and
considerations. I beg that you will not consider me as going
beyond my province. I present them to you as man to man, not only
in the interest of good relations between Germany and the United
States, but of interests common to all the great nations of the
earth,--of their common interest in giving something like
satisfaction to a desire so earnest and wide-spread as that which
has been shown in all parts of the world for arbitration.

I remain, dear Baron von Bulow,
Most respectfully and sincerely yours,
                (Sgd.) ANDREW D. WHITE.

P. S. Think how easily, if some such tribunal existed, your
government and mine could refer to it the whole mass of minor
questions which our respective parliamentary bodies have got
control of, and entangled in all sorts of petty prejudices and
demagogical utterances; for instance, Samoa, the tonnage dues,
the sugar-bounty question, the most-favored-nation clause, etc.,
etc., which keep the two countries constantly at loggerheads. Do
you not see that submission of such questions to such a tribunal
as is now proposed, so far from being derogatory to sovereignty,
really relieves the sovereign and the Foreign Office of the most
vexatious fetters and limitations of parliamentarianism. It is
not at all unlikely that such a court would decide in your favor;
and if so, every thoughtful American would say, "Well and good;
it appears that, in spite of all the speeches in Congress, we
were wrong." And the matter would then be ended with the
good-will of all parties.                    
(Sgd.) A.D.W.

It is indeed a crisis in the history of the conference, and
perhaps in the history of Germany. I can only hope that Bulow
will give careful attention to the considerations which Munster
and myself press upon him.

Later in the day Sir Julian Pauncefote called, evidently much
vexed that the sitting of the subcommittee had been deferred, and
even more vexed since he had learned from De Staal the real
reason. He declared that he was opposed to stringing out the
conference much longer; that the subcommittee could get along
perfectly well without Dr. Zorn; that if Germany did not wish to
come in, she could keep out; etc., etc. He seemed to forget that
Germany's going out means the departure of Austria and Italy, to
say nothing of one or two minor powers, and therefore the
bringing to naught of the conference. I did not think it best to
say anything about Molls's departure, but soothed him as much as
I could by dwelling on the success of his proposal that the
permanent council here shall be composed of the resident
diplomatic representatives.

The other members of our commission, and especially President
Low, were at first very much opposed to Dr. Holls's going, on the
ground that it might be considered an interference in a matter
pertaining to Germany; but I persisted in sending him, agreeing
to take all the responsibility, and declaring that he should go
simply as a messenger from me, as the American ambassador at
Berlin, to the imperial minister of foreign affairs.

June 17.

The morning was given largely to completing my draft of our
memorial to the conference regarding the immunity of private
property in time of war from seizure on the high seas.

In the afternoon drove to Scheveningen to make sundry official
visits, and in the evening to the great festival given by the
Netherlands Government to the conference.

Its first feature was a series of tableaux representing some of
the most famous pictures in the Dutch galleries the most
successful of all being Rembrandt's "Night Watch." Jan Steen's
"Wedding Party" was also very beautiful. Then came peasant dances
given, in the midst of the great hall, by persons in the costumes
of all the different provinces. These were characteristic and
interesting, some of them being wonderfully quaint.

The violinist of the late King, Johannes Wolff, played some solos
in a masterly way.

The music by the great military band, especially the hymn of
William of Nassau and the Dutch and Russian national anthems, was
splendidly rendered, and the old Dutch provincial music played in
connection with the dances and tableaux was also noteworthy.

It was an exceedingly brilliant assemblage, and the whole
festival from first to last a decided success.

June 18, Sunday.

Went to Leyden to attend service at St. Peter's. Both the church
and its monuments are interesting. Visited also the church of St.
Pancras, a remarkable specimen of Gothic architecture, and looked
upon the tomb of Van der Werf, the brave burgomaster who defended
the town against the Spaniards during the siege.

At the university I was much interested in the public hall where
degrees are conferred, and above all in the many portraits of
distinguished professors. Lingered next in the botanical gardens
back of the university, which are very beautiful.

Then to the Museum of Antiquities, which is remarkably rich in
Egyptian and other monuments. Roman art is also very fully
represented.

Thence home, and, on arriving, found, of all men in the world,
Thomas B. Reed, Speaker of our House of Representatives. Mr.
Newel, our minister, took us both for a drive to Scheveningen,
and Mr. Reed's conversation was exceedingly interesting; he is
well read in history and, apparently, in every field of English
literature. There is a bigness, a heartiness, a shrewdness, and a
genuineness about him which greatly attract me.

June 19.

Called on M. de Staal to show him Holls's telegram from Berlin,
which is encouraging. De Staal thinks that we may have to give up
the tenth section of the arbitration plan, which includes
obligatory arbitration in sundry minor matters; but while I shall
be very sorry to see this done, we ought to make the sacrifice if
it will hold Germany, Italy, and Austria to us.

A little later received a hearty telegram from the Secretary of
State authorizing our ordering the wreath of silver and gold and
placing it on the tomb of Grotius. Telegraphed and wrote Major
Allen at Berlin full directions on the subject. I am determined
that the tribute shall be worthy of our country, of its object,
and of the occasion.

In the afternoon took Speaker Reed, with his wife and daughter,
through the "House in the Wood," afterward through the grounds,
which are more beautiful than ever, and then to Delft, where we
visited the tombs of William the Silent and Grotius, and finally
the house in which William was assassinated. It was even more
interesting to me than during either of my former visits, and was
evidently quite as interesting to Mr. Reed.

At six attended a long meeting of the American delegation, which
elaborated the final draft of our communication to M. de Staal on
the immunity of private property on the high seas. Various
passages were stricken out, some of them--and, indeed, one of the
best--in deference to the ideas of Captain Mahan, who, though he
is willing, under instructions from the government, to join in
presenting the memorial, does not wish to sign anything which can
possibly be regarded as indicating a personal belief in the
establishment of such immunity. His is the natural view of a
sailor; but the argument with which he supports it does not at
all convince me. It is that during war we should do everything
possible to weaken and worry the adversary, in order that he may
be the sooner ready for peace; but this argument proves too much,
since it would oblige us, if logically carried out, to go back to
the marauding and atrocities of the Thirty Years' War.

June 20.

Went to the session of one of the committees at the "House in the
Wood," and showed Mr. van Karnebeek our private-property
memorial, which he read, and on which he heartily complimented
us.

I then made known to him our proposal to lay a wreath on the tomb
of Grotius, and with this he seemed exceedingly pleased, saying
that the minister of foreign affairs, M. de Beaufort, would be
especially delighted, since he is devoted to the memory of
Grotius, and delivered the historical address when the statue in
front of the great church at Delft was unveiled

A little later submitted the memorial; as previously agreed upon,
to Count Munster, who also approved it.

Holls telegraphs me from Berlin that he has been admirably
received by the chancellor, Prince Hohenlohe, and by Baron von
Bulow, and that he is leaving for Hamburg to see the Emperor.

At four P.M. to a meeting of the full conference to receive
report on improvements and extension of the Red Cross rules, etc.
This was adopted in a happy-go-lucky unparliamentary way, for the
eminent diplomatist who presides over the conference still
betrays a Russian lack of acquaintance with parliamentary
proceedings. So begins the first full movement of the conference
in the right direction; and it is a good beginning.

Walked home through the beautiful avenues of the park with Mr.
van Karnebeek and Baron d'Estournelles, who is also a charming
man. He has been a minister plenipotentiary, but is now a member
of the French Chamber of Deputies and of the conference.

June 21.

Early in the morning received a report from Holls, who arrived
from Hamburg late last night. His talks with Bulow and Prince
Hohenlohe had been most encouraging. Bulow has sent to the
Emperor my long private letter to himself, earnestly urging the
acceptance by Germany of our plan of arbitration. Prince
Hohenlohe seems to have entered most cordially into our ideas,
giving Holls a card which would admit him to the Emperor, and
telegraphing a request that his Majesty see him. But the Emperor
was still upon his yacht, at sea, and Holls could stay no longer.
Bulow is trying to make an appointment for him to meet the
Emperor at the close of the week.

Early in the afternoon went with Minister Newel and Mr. Low to
call on M. de Beaufort regarding plans for the Grotius
celebration, on July 4, at Delft. It was in general decided that
we should have the ceremony in the great church at eleven o
'clock, with sundry speeches, and that at half-past twelve the
American delegation should give a luncheon to all the invited
guests in the town hall opposite.

Holls tells me that last night, at the dinner of the president of
the Austrian delegation, he met Munster, who said to him, "I can
get along with Hohenlohe, and also with Bulow, but not with those
d--d lawyers in the Foreign Office" ("Mit Hohenlohe kann tch
auskommen, mit Bulow auch, aber mit diesen verdammten Juristen im
Auswartigen Amt, nicht").

June 22.

Up at four o'clock and at ten attended a session of the first
section at the "House in the Wood." Very interesting were the
discussions regarding bullets and asphyxiating bombs. As to the
former, Sir John Ardagh of the British delegation repelled
earnestly the charges made regarding the British bullets used in
India, and offered to substitute for the original proposal one
which certainly would be much more effective in preventing
unnecessary suffering and death; but the Russians seemed glad to
score a point against Great Britain, and Sir John's proposal was
voted down, its only support being derived from our own
delegation. Captain Crozier, our military delegate, took an
active part in supporting Sir John Ardagh, but the majority
against us was overwhelming.

As to asphyxiating bombs, Captain Mahan spoke at length against
the provision to forbid them: his ground being that not the
slightest thing had yet been done looking to such an invention;
that, even if there had been, their use would not be so bad as
the use of torpedoes against ships of war; that asphyxiating men
by means of deleterious gases was no worse than asphyxiating them
with water; indeed, that the former was the less dangerous of the
two, since the gases used might simply incapacitate men for a
short time, while the blowing up of a ship of war means death to
all or nearly all of those upon it.

To this it was answered--and, as it seemed to me, with
force--that asphyxiating bombs might be used against towns for
the destruction of vast numbers of non-combatants, including
women and children, while torpedoes at sea are used only against
the military and naval forces of the enemy. The original proposal
was carried by a unanimous vote, save ours. I am not satisfied
with our attitude on this question; but what can a layman do when
he has against him the foremost contemporary military and naval
experts? My hope is that the United States will yet stand with
the majority on the record.

I stated afterward in a bantering way to Captain Mahan, as well
as others, that while I could not support any of the arguments
that had been made in favor of allowing asphyxiating bombs, there
was one which somewhat appealed to me--namely, that the dread of
them might do something to prevent the rush of the rural
population to the cities, and the aggregation of the poorer
classes in them, which is one of the most threatening things to
modern society, and also a second argument that such bombs would
bring home to warlike stay-at-home orators and writers the
realities of war.

At noon received the French translation of our memorial to De
Staal, but found it very imperfect throughout, and in some parts
absolutely inadmissible; so I worked with Baron de Bildt,
president of the Swedish delegation here, all the afternoon in
revising it.

At six the American delegation met and chose me for their orator
at the approaching Grotius festival at Delft. I naturally feel
proud to discharge a duty of this kind, and can put my heart into
it, for Grotius has long been to me almost an object of idolatry,
and his main works a subject of earnest study. There are few men
in history whom I so deeply venerate. Twenty years ago, when
minister at Berlin, I sent an eminent American artist to Holland
and secured admirable copies of the two best portraits of the
great man. One of these now hangs in the Law Library of Cornell
University, and the other over my work-table at the Berlin
Embassy.

June 23.

At work all the morning on letters and revising final draft of
memorial on immunity of private property at sea, and lunched
afterward at the "House in the Wood" to talk it over with Baron
de Bildt.

At the same table met M. de Martens, who has just returned by
night to his work here, after presiding a day or two over the
Venezuela arbitration tribunal at Paris. He told me that Sir
Richard Webster, in opening the case, is to speak for sixteen
days, and De Martens added that he himself had read our entire
Venezuelan report, as well as the other documents on the subject
which form quite a large library. And yet we do not include men
like him in "the working-classes"!

In the evening to a reception at the house of M. de Beaufort,
minister of foreign affairs, and was cordially greeted by him and
his wife, both promising that they would accept our invitation to
Delft. I took in to the buffet the wife of the present Dutch
prime minister, who also expressed great interest in our
proposal, and declared her intention of being present.

Count Zanini, the Italian minister and delegate here, gave me a
comical account of two speeches in the session of the first
section this morning; one being by a delegate from Persia, Mirza
Riza Khan, who is minister at St. Petersburg. His Persian
Excellency waxed eloquent over the noble qualities of the Emperor
of Russia, and especially over his sincerity as shown by the fact
that when his Excellency tumbled from his horse at a review, his
Majesty sent twice to inquire after his health. The whole effect
upon the conference was to provoke roars of laughter.

But the great matter of the day was the news, which has not yet
been made public, that Prince Hohenlohe, the German chancellor,
has come out strongly for the arbitration tribunal, and has sent
instructions here accordingly. This is a great gain, and seems to
remove one of the worst stumbling-blocks. But we will have to pay
for this removal, probably, by giving up section 10 of the
present plan, which includes a system of obligatory arbitration
in various minor matters,--a system which would be of use to the
world in many ways. While the American delegation, as stated in
my letter which Holls took to Bulow, and which has been forwarded
to the Emperor, will aid in throwing out of the arbitration plan
everything of an obligatory nature, if Germany insists upon it, I
learn that the Dutch Government is much opposed to this
concession, and may publicly protest against it.

A curious part of the means used in bringing about this change of
opinion was the pastoral letter, elsewhere referred to, issued by
the Protestant Episcopal bishop of Texas, calling for prayers
throughout the State for the success of the conference in its
efforts to diminish the horrors of war. This pastoral letter, to
which I referred in my letter to Minister von Bulow, I intrusted
to Holls, authorizing him to use it as he thought fit. He showed
it to Prince Hohenlohe, and the latter, although a Roman
Catholic, was evidently affected by it, and especially by the
depth and extent of the longing for peace which it showed. It is
perhaps an interesting example of an indirect "answer to prayer,"
since it undoubtedly strengthened the feelings in the prince
chancellor's mind which led him to favor arbitration.

June 24.

Sent to M. de Staal, as president of the conference, the memorial
relating to the exemption of private property, not contraband of
war, from capture on the high seas. Devoted the morning to
blocking out my Grotius address, and afterward drove with Holls
to Delft to look over the ground for our Fourth-of-July festival.
The town hall is interesting and contains, among other portraits,
one which is evidently a good likeness of Grotius; the only
difficulty is that, for our intended luncheon, the rooms, though
beautiful, seem inadequate.

Thence to the church, and after looking over that part of it near
the monuments, with reference to the Grotius ceremony, went into
the organ-loft with the organist. There I listened for nearly an
hour while he and Holls played finely on that noble instrument;
and as I sat and looked down over the church and upon the distant
monuments, the old historic scenes of four hundred years ago came
up before me, with memories almost overpowering of my first visit
thirty-five years ago. And all then with me are now dead.

June 25.

At nine in the morning off with Holls to Rotterdam, and on
arriving took the tram through the city to the steamboat wharf,
going thence by steamer to Dort. Arrived, just before the close
of service, at the great church where various sessions of the
synod were held. The organ was very fine; the choir-stalls, where
those wretched theologians wrangled through so many sessions and
did so much harm to their own country and others, were the only
other fine things in the church, and they were much dilapidated.
I could not but reflect bitterly on the monstrous evils provoked
by these men who sat so long there spinning a monstrous theology
to be substituted for the teachings of Christ himself.

Thence back to The Hague and to Scheveningen, and talked over
conference matters with Count Munster. Received telegrams from
Count von Bulow in answer to mine congratulating him on his
promotion, also one from Baron von Mumm, the German minister at
Luxemburg, who goes temporarily to Washington.

June 26.

At work all the morning on my Grotius address Lunched at the
"House in the Wood," and walked to town with sundry delegates. In
the afternoon went to a "tea" at the house of Madame Boreel and
met a number of charming people; but the great attraction was the
house, which is that formerly occupied by John De Witt--that from
which he went to prison and to assassination. Here also Motley
lived, and I was shown the room in which a large part of his
history was written, and where Queen Sophia used to discuss Dutch
events and personages with him.

The house is beautiful, spacious, and most charmingly decorated,
many of the ornaments and paintings having been placed there in
the time of De Witt.

June 27.

At all sorts of work during the morning, and then, on invitation
of President Low, went with the other members of the delegation
to Haarlem, where we saw the wonderful portraits by Frans Hals,
which impressed me more than ever, and heard the great organ. It
has been rebuilt since I was there thirty-five years ago; but it
is still the same great clumsy machine, and very poorly
played,--that is, with no spirit, and without any effort to
exhibit anything beyond the ordinary effects for which any little
church organ would do as well.

In the evening dined with Count Zanini, the Italian minister and
delegate, and discussed French matters with Baron d'Estournelles.
He represents the best type of French diplomatist, and is in
every way attractive.

Afterward to Mr. van Karnebeek's reception, meeting various
people in a semi-satisfactory way.

June 29.

In the morning, in order to work off the beginnings of a
headache, I went to Rotterdam and walked until noon about the
streets and places, recalling my former visit, which came very
vividly before me as I gazed upon the statue of Erasmus, and
thought upon his life here. No man in history has had more
persistent injustice done him. If my life were long enough I
would gladly use my great collection of Erasmiana in illustrating
his services to the world. To say nothing of other things, the
modern "Higher Criticism" has its roots in his work.

June 30.

Engaged on the final revision of my Grotius speech, and on
various documents.

At noon to the "House in the Wood" for lunch, and afterward took
a walk in the grounds with Beldiman, the Roumanian delegate, who
explained to me the trouble in Switzerland over the vote on the
Red Cross Conference.

It appears that whereas Switzerland initiated the Red Cross
movement, has ever since cherished it, and has been urged by
Italy and other powers to take still further practical measures
for it, the Dutch delegation recently interposed, secured for one
of their number the presidency of the special conference, and
thus threw out my Berlin colleague, Colonel Roth, who had been
previously asked to take the position and had accepted it, with
the result that the whole matter has been taken out of the hands
of Switzerland, where it justly belonged, and put under the care
of the Netherlands. This has provoked much ill feeling in
Switzerland, and there is especial astonishment at the fact that
when Beldiman moved an amendment undoing this unjust arrangement
it was, by some misunderstanding lost, and that therefore there
has been perpetuated what seems much like an injustice against
Switzerland. I promised to exert myself to have the matter
rectified so far as the American delegation was concerned, and
later was successful in doing so.

In the evening dined at Minister Newel's. Sat between Minister
Okolicsanyi of the Austrian delegation, and Count Welsersheimb,
the chairman of that delegation, and had interesting talks with
them, with the Duke of Tetuan, and others. It appears that the
Duke, who is a very charming, kindly man, has, like myself, a
passion both for cathedral architecture and for organ music; he
dwelt much upon Burgos, which he called the gem of Spanish
cathedrals.

Thence to the final reception at the house of M. de Beaufort,
minister of foreign affairs, who showed me a contemporary
portrait of Grotius which displays the traits observable in the
copies which Burleigh painted for me twenty years ago at
Amsterdam and Leyden. Talked with Sir Julian Pauncefote regarding
the Swiss matter; he had abstained from voting for the reason
that he had no instructions in the premises.

July 2.

In the morning Major Allen, military attache of our embassy at
Berlin, arrived, bringing the Grotius wreath. Under Secretary
Hay's permission, I had given to one of the best Berlin
silversmiths virtually carte blanche, and the result is most
satisfactory. The wreath is very large, being made up, on one
side, of a laurel branch with leaves of frosted silver and
berries of gold, and, on the other, of an oak branch with silver
leaves and gold acorns, both boughs being tied together at the
bottom by a large knot of ribbon in silver gilded, bearing the
arms of the Netherlands and the United States on enameled
shields, and an inscription as follows:

     To the Memory of HUGO GROTIUS;
           In Reverence and Gratitude,
      From the United States of America;
  On the Occasion of the International Peace Conference           
            of The Hague.
           July 4th, 1899.

It is a superb piece of work, and its ebony case, with silver
clasps, and bearing a silver shield with suitable inscription, is
also perfect: the whole thing attracts most favorable attention.

CHAPTER XLIX

AS PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN DELEGATION AT THE PEACE CONFERENCE
OF THE HAGUE: V--1899

July 4.

On this day the American delegation invited their colleagues to
celebrate our national anniversary at the tomb of Grotius, first
in the great church, and afterward in the town hall of Delft.
Speeches were made by the minister of foreign affairs of the
Netherlands De Beaufort; by their first delegate, Van Karnebeek;
by Mr. Asser, one of their leading jurists; by the burgomaster of
Delft; and by Baron de Bildt, chairman of the Swedish delegation
and minister at Rome, who read a telegram from the King of Sweden
referring to Grotius's relations to the Swedish diplomatic
service; as well as by President Low of Columbia University and
myself: the duty being intrusted to me of laying the wreath upon
Grotius's tomb and making the address with reference to it. As
all the addresses are to be printed, I shall give no more
attention to them here. A very large audience was present,
embracing the ambassadors and principal members of the
conference, the Netherlands ministers of state, professors from
the various universities of the Netherlands, and a large body of
other invited guests.

The music of the chimes, of the organ, and of the royal choir of
one hundred voices was very fine; and, although the day was
stormy, with a high wind and driving rain, everything went off
well.

After the exercises in the church, our delegation gave a
breakfast, which was very satisfactory. About three hundred and
fifty persons sat down to the tables at the town hall, and one
hundred other guests, including the musicians, at the leading
restaurant in the place. In the afternoon the Americans gathered
at the reception given by our minister, Mr. Newel, and his wife,
and in the evening there was a large attendance at an "American
concert" given by the orchestra at the great hall in
Scheveningen.

July 5.

Early in the morning to the second committee of the conference,
where I spoke in behalf of the Beldiman resolution, doing justice
to Switzerland as regards the continuance of the Red Cross
interests in Swiss hands; and on going to a vote we were
successful.

Then, the question of a proper dealing with our memorial
regarding the immunity of private property on the high seas
coming up, I spoke in favor of referring it to the general
conference, and gave the reasons why it should not simply be
dropped out as not coming within the subjects contemplated in the
call to the conference. Though my speech was in French, it went
off better than I expected.

In the afternoon, at the full conference, the same subject came
up; and then, after a preface in French, asking permission to
speak in English, I made my speech, which, probably, three
quarters of all the delegates understood, but, at my request, a
summary of it was afterward given in French by Mr. van Karnebeek.

The occasion of this speech was my seconding the motion, made in
a very friendly manner by M. de Martens, to refer the matter to a
future conference; but I went into the merits of the general
subject to show its claims upon the various nations, etc., etc.,
though not, of course, as fully as I would have done had the
matter been fully under discussion. My speech was very well
received, and will, I hope, aid in keeping the subject alive.

In the afternoon drove to Ryswyck, to the house of M. Cornets de
Groot, the living representative of the Grotius family. The house
and grounds were very pleasant, but the great attraction was a
collection of relics of Grotius, including many manuscripts from
his own hand, --among these a catechism for his children, written
in the prison of Loewenstein; with official documents, signed and
sealed, connected with the public transactions of his time; also
letters which passed between him and Oxenstiern, the great
Swedish chancellor, some in Latin and some in other languages;
besides sundry poems. There were also a multitude of portraits,
engravings, and documents relating to Olden-Barneveld and others
of Grotius's contemporaries.

The De Groot family gave us a most hearty reception, introducing
their little girl, who is the latest-born descendant of Grotius,
and showing us various household relics of their great ancestor,
including cups, glasses, and the like. Mr. De Groot also gave me
some curious information regarding him which I did not before
possess; and, among other things, told me that when Grotius's
body was transferred, shortly after his death, from Rostock to
Delft, the coffin containing it was stoned by a mob at Rotterdam;
also that at the unveiling of the statue of Grotius in front of
the church at Delft, a few years ago, the high-church Calvinists
would not allow the children from their church schools to join
the other children in singing hymns. The old bitterness of the
extreme Calvinistic party toward their great compatriot was thus
still exhibited, and the remark was made at the time, by a member
of it, that the statue was perfectly true to life, since "its
back was turned toward the church"; to which a reply was made
that "Grotius's face in the statue, like his living face, was
steadily turned toward justice." This latter remark had reference
to the fact that a court is held in the city hall, toward which
the statue is turned.

In the evening to a dinner given by Mr. Piersoon, minister of
finance and prime minister of the Netherlands, to our delegation
and to his colleagues of the Dutch ministry. Everything passed
off well, Mr. Piersoon proposing a toast to the health of the
President of the United States, to which I replied in a toast to
the Queen of the Netherlands. In the course of his speech Mr.
Piersoon thanked us for our tribute to Grotius, and showed really
deep feeling on the subject. There is no doubt that we have
struck a responsive chord in the hearts of all liberal and
thoughtful men and women of the Netherlands; from every quarter
come evidences of this.

A remark of his, regarding arbitration, especially pleased us. He
said that the arbitration plan, as it had come from the great
committee, was like a baby:--apparently helpless, and of very
little value, unable to do much, and requiring careful nursing;
but that it had one great merit:--IT WOULD GROW.

This I believe to be a very accurate statement of the situation.
The general feeling of the conference becomes better and better.
More and more the old skepticism has departed, and in place of it
has come a strong ambition to have a share in what we are
beginning to believe may be a most honorable contribution to the
peace of the world. I have never taken part in more earnest
discussions than those which during the last two weeks have
occupied us, and especially those relating to arbitration.

I think I may say, without assuming too much, that our Grotius
celebration has been a contribution of some value to this growth
of earnestness. It has, if I am not greatly mistaken, revealed to
the conference, still more clearly than before, the fact that it
is a historical body intrusted with a matter of vast importance
and difficulty, and that we shall be judged in history with
reference to this fact.

July 6.

At 5.30 P.M. off in special train with the entire conference to
Amsterdam. On arriving, we found a long train of court carriages
which took us to the palace, the houses on each side throughout
the entire distance being decorated with flags and banners, and
the streets crowded with men, women, and children. We were indeed
a brave show, since all of us, except the members of our American
delegation, wore gorgeous uniforms with no end of ribbons, stars,
and insignia of various offices and orders.

On reaching our destination, we were received by the Queen and
Queen-mother, and shortly afterward went in to dinner. With the
possible exception of a lord mayor's feast at the Guildhall, it
was the most imposing thing of the kind that I have ever seen.
The great banqueting-hall, dating from the glorious days of the
Dutch Republic, is probably the largest and most sumptuous in
continental Europe, and the table furniture, decorations, and
dinner were worthy of it. About two hundred and fifty persons,
including all the members of the conference and the higher
officials of the kingdom, sat down, the Queen and Queen-mother at
the head of the table, and about them the ambassadors and
presidents of delegations. My own place, being very near the
Majesties, gave me an excellent opportunity to see and hear
everything. Toward the close of the banquet the young Queen arose
and addressed us, so easily and naturally that I should have
supposed her speech extemporaneous had I not seen her consulting
her manuscript just before rising. Her manner was perfect, and
her voice so clear as to be heard by every one in the hall.
Everything considered, it was a remarkable effort for a young
lady of seventeen. At its close an excellent reply was made by
our president, M. de Staal; and soon afterward, when we had
passed into the great gallery, there came an even more striking
exhibition of the powers of her youthful Majesty, for she
conversed with every member of the conference, and with the
utmost ease and simplicity. To me she returned thanks for the
Grotius tribute, and in very cordial terms, as did later also the
Queen-mother; and I cannot but believe that they were sincere,
since, three months later, at the festival given them at Potsdam,
they both renewed their acknowledgments in a cordial way which
showed that their patriotic hearts were pleased. Various leading
men of the Netherlands and of the conference also thanked us, and
one of them said, "You Americans have taught us a lesson; for,
instead of a mere display of fireworks to the rabble of a single
city, or a ball or concert to a few officials, you have, in this
solemn recognition of Grotius, paid the highest compliment
possible to the entire people of the Netherlands, past, present,
and to come."

July 7.

In the morning to the great hall of the "House in the Wood,"
where the "editing committee" (comite de redaction) reported to
the third committee of the conference the whole arbitration plan.
It struck me most favorably, --indeed, it surprised me, though I
have kept watch of every step. I am convinced that it is better
than any of the plans originally submitted, not excepting our
own. It will certainly be a gain to the world.

At the close of the session we adjourned until Monday, the 17th,
in order that the delegates may get instructions from their
various governments regarding the signing of the protocols,
agreements, etc.

July 8.

In the evening dined with M. de Mier, the Mexican minister at
Paris and delegate here, and had a very interesting talk with M.
Raffalovitch, to whom I spoke plainly regarding the only road to
disarmament. I told him that he must know as well as any one that
there is a vague dread throughout Europe of the enormous growth
of Russia, and that he must acknowledge that, whether just or
not, it is perfectly natural. He acquiesced in this, and I then
went on to say that the Emperor Nicholas had before him an
opportunity to do more good and make a nobler reputation than any
other czar had ever done, not excepting Alexander II with his
emancipation of the serfs; that I had thought very seriously of
writing, at the close of the conference, to M. Pobedonostzeff,
presenting to him the reasons why Russia might well make a
practical beginning of disarmament by dismissing to their homes,
or placing on public works, say two hundred thousand of her
soldiers; that this would leave her all the soldiers she needs,
and more; that he must know, as everybody knows, that no other
power dreams of attacking Russia or dares to do so; that there
would be no disadvantage in such a dismissal of troops to
peaceful avocations, but every advantage; and that if it were
done the result would be that, in less than forty years, Russia
would become, by this husbanding of her resources, the most
powerful nation on the eastern continent, and able to carry out
any just policy which she might desire. I might have added that
one advantage of such a reduction would certainly be less
inclination by the war party at St. Petersburg to plunge into
military adventures. (Had Russia thus reduced her army she would
never have sunk into the condition in which she finds herself now
(1905), as I revise these lines. Instead of sending Alexeieff to
make war, she would have allowed De Witte to make peace--peace on
a basis of justice to Japan, and a winter access to the Pacific,
under proper safeguards, for herself.)

Raffalovitch seemed to acquiesce fully in my view, except as to
the number of soldiers to be released, saying that fifty or sixty
thousand would do perfectly well as showing that Russia is in
earnest.

He is one of the younger men of Russia, but has very decided
ability, and this he has shown not only in his secretaryship of
the conference, but in several of his works on financial and
other public questions published in Paris, which have secured for
him a corresponding membership of the French Institute.

It is absolutely clear in my mind that, if anything is to be done
toward disarmament, a practical beginning must be made by the
Czar; but the unfortunate thing is that with, no doubt, fairly
good intentions, he is weak and ill informed. The dreadful
mistake he is making in violating the oath sworn by his
predecessors and himself to Finland is the result of this
weakness and ignorance; and should he attempt to diminish his
overgrown army he would, in all probability, be overborne by the
military people about him, and by petty difficulties which they
would suggest, or, if necessary, create. It must be confessed
that there is one danger in any attempted disarmament, and this
is that the military clique might, to prevent it, plunge the
empire into a war.

The Emperor is surrounded mainly by inferior men. Under the shade
of autocracy men of independent strength rarely flourish. Indeed,
I find that the opinion regarding Russian statesmen which I
formed in Russia is confirmed by old diplomatists, of the best
judgment, whom I meet here. One of them said to me the other day:
"There is no greater twaddle than all the talk about far-seeing
purposes and measures by Russian statesmen. They are generally
weak, influenced by minor, and especially by personal,
considerations, and inferior to most men in similar positions in
the other great governments of Europe. The chancellor, Prince
Gortchakoff, of whom so much has been said, was a weak, vain man,
whom Bismarck found it generally very easy to deal with."

As to my own experience, I think many of those whom I saw were
far from the best of their kind with whom I have had to do. I
have never imagined a human being in the position of minister of
the interior of a great nation so utterly futile as the person
who held that place at St. Petersburg in my time; and the same
may be said of several others whom I met there in high places.
There are a few strong men, and, unfortunately, Pobedonostzeff is
one of them. Luckily, De Witte, the minister of finance, is
another.

July 10.

The evil which I dreaded, as regards the formation of public
opinion in relation to the work of our conference, is becoming
realized. The London "Spectator," just received, contains a most
disheartening article, "The Peace Conference a Failure," with an
additional article, more fully developed, to the same effect.
Nothing could be more unjust; but, on account of the
"Spectator's" "moderation," it will greatly influence public
opinion, and doubtless prevent, to some extent, the calling of
future conferences needed to develop the good work done in this.
Fortunately the correspondent of the "Times" gives a better
example, and shows, in his excellent letters, what has been
accomplished here. The "New York Herald," also, is thus far
taking the right view, and maintaining it with some earnestness.

July 17.

This morning, at ten, to the "House in the Wood" to hear Mr. van
Karnebeek's report on disarmament, checking invention, etc.,
before the session of committee No. 1. It was strongly attacked,
and was left in shreds: the whole subject is evidently too
immature and complicated to be dealt with during the present
conference.

In the afternoon came up an especially interesting matter in the
session of the arbitration committee, the occasion being a report
of the subcommittee. Among the points which most interested us as
Americans was a provision for an appeal from the decision of the
arbitration tribunal on the discovery of new facts.

De Martens of Russia spoke with great force against such right of
appeal, and others took ground with him. Holls really
distinguished himself by a telling speech on the other
side--which is the American side, that feature having been
present in our original instructions; Messrs. Asser and Karnebeek
both spoke for it effectively, and the final decision was
virtually in our favor, for Mr. Asser's compromise was adopted,
which really gives us the case.

The Siamese representatives requested that the time during which
an appeal might be allowed should be six instead of three months,
which we had named; but it was finally made a matter of
adjustment between the parties.

July 18.

The American delegation met at ten, when a cable message from the
State Department was read authorizing us to sign the protocol.

July 19.

Field day in the arbitration committee. A decided sensation was
produced by vigorous speeches by my Berlin colleague, Beldiman,
of the Roumanian delegation, and by Servian, Greek, and other
delegates, against the provision for commissions d'enquete,--De
Martens, Descamps, and others making vigorous speeches in behalf
of them. It looked as if the Balkan states were likely to
withdraw from the conference if the commission d'enquete feature
was insisted upon: they are evidently afraid that such "examining
commissions" may be sent within their boundaries by some of their
big neighbors--Russia, for example--to spy out the land and start
intrigues. The whole matter was put over.

In the evening to Count Munster's dinner at Scheveningen, and had
a very interesting talk on conference matters with Sir Julian
Pauncefote, finding that in most things we shall be able to stand
together as the crisis approaches.

July 20.

For several days past I have been preparing a possible speech to
be made in signing the protocol, etc., which, if not used for
that purpose, may be published, and, perhaps, aid in keeping
public opinion in the right line as regards the work of the
conference after it has closed.

In the afternoon to the "House in the Wood," the committee on
arbitration meeting again. More speeches were made by the
Bulgarians and Servians, who are still up in arms, fearing that
the commissionn d'enquete means intervention by the great states
in their affairs. Speeches to allay their fears were made by
Count Nigra, Dr. Zorn, Holls, and Leon Bourgeois. Zorn spoke in
German with excellent effect, as did Holls in English; Nigra was
really impressive; and Bourgeois, from the chair, gave us a
specimen of first-rate French oratory. He made a most earnest
appeal to the delegates of the Balkan states, showing them that
by such a system of arbitration as is now proposed the lesser
powers would be the very first to profit, and he appealed to
their loyalty to humanity. The speech was greatly and justly
applauded.

The Balkan delegates are gradually and gracefully yielding.

July 21.

In the morning to the "House in the Wood," where a plenary
session of the conference was held. It was a field day on
explosive, flattening and expanding bullets, etc. Our Captain
Crozier, who evidently knows more about the subject than anybody
else here, urged a declaration of the principle that balls should
be not more deadly or cruel than is absolutely necessary to put
soldiers hors de combat; but the committee had reported a
resolution which, Crozier insists, opens the door to worse
missiles than those at present used. Many and earnest speeches
were made. I made a short speech, moving to refer the matter back
to the committee, with instructions to harmonize and combine the
two ideas in one article--that is, the idea which the article now
expresses, and Crozier's idea of stating the general principle to
which the bullets should conform--namely, that of not making a
wound more cruel than necessary; but the amendment was lost.

July 22.

Sir Julian Pauncefote called to discuss with us the signing of
the Acte Final. There seems to be general doubt as to what is the
best manner of signing the conventions, declarations, etc., and
all remains in the air.

In the morning the American delegation met and Captain Mahan
threw in a bomb regarding article 27, which requires that when
any two parties to the conference are drifting into war, the
other powers should consider it a duty (devoir) to remind them of
the arbitration tribunal, etc. He thinks that this infringes the
American doctrine of not entangling ourselves in the affairs of
foreign states, and will prevent the ratification of the
convention by the United States Senate. This aroused earnest
debate, Captain Mahan insisting upon the omission of the word
"devoir," and Dr. Holls defending the article as reported by the
subcommittee, of which he is a member, and contending that the
peculiar interests of America could be protected by a
reservation. Finally, the delegation voted to insist upon the
insertion of the qualifying words, "autant que les circonstances
permettent," but this decision was afterward abandoned.

July 23.

Met at our Minister Newel's supper Sir Henry Howard, who told me
that the present Dutch ministry, with Piersoon at its head and De
Beaufort as minister of foreign affairs, is in a very bad way;
that its "subserviency to Italy," in opposition to the demands of
the Vatican for admittance into the conference, and its
difficulties with the socialists and others, arising from the
police measures taken against Armenian, Finnish, New Turkish, and
other orators who have wished to come here and make the
conference and the city a bear-garden , have led both the extreme
parties--that is, the solid Roman Catholic party on one side, and
the pretended votaries of liberty on the other--to hate the
ministry equally. He thinks that they will join hands and oust
the ministry just as soon as the conference is over.

Some allowance is to be made for the fact that Sir Henry is a
Roman Catholic: while generally liberal, he evidently looks at
many questions from the point of view of his church.[9]

[9] As it turned out, he was right: the ministry was ousted, but
not so soon as he expected, for the catastrophe did not arrive
until about two years later. Then came in a coalition of high
Calvinists and Roman Catholics which brought in the Kuyper
ministry.

July 24.

For some days--in fact, ever since Captain Mahan on the 22d
called attention to article 27 of the arbitration convention as
likely to be considered an infringement of the Monroe
Doctrine--our American delegation has been greatly perplexed. We
have been trying to induce the French, who proposed article 27,
and who are as much attached to it as is a hen to her one chick,
to give it up, or, at least, to allow a limiting or explanatory
clause to be placed with it. Various clauses of this sort have
been proposed. The article itself makes it the duty of the other
signatory powers, when any two nations are evidently drifting
toward war, to remind these two nations that the arbitration
tribunal is open to them. Nothing can be more simple and natural;
but we fear lest, when the convention comes up for ratification
in the United States Senate, some over-sensitive patriot may seek
to defeat it by insisting that it is really a violation of
time-honored American policy at home and abroad--the policy of
not entangling ourselves in the affairs of foreign nations, on
one side, and of not allowing them to interfere in our affairs,
on the other.

At twelve this day our delegation gave a large luncheon at the
Oude Doelen--among those present being Ambassadors De Staal,
Count Nigra, and Sir Julian Pauncefote, Bourgeois, Karnebeek,
Basily, Baron d'Estournelles, Baron de Bildt, and others--to
discuss means of getting out of the above-mentioned difficulty. A
most earnest effort was made to induce the French to allow some
such modification as has been put into other articles--namely,
the words, "autant que possible," or some limiting clause to the
same effect; but neither Bourgeois nor D'Estournelles,
representing France, would think of it for a moment. Bourgeois,
as the head of the French delegation, spoke again and again, at
great length. Among other things, he gave us a very long
disquisition on the meaning of "devoir" as it stands in the
article--a disquisition which showed that the Jesuits are not the
only skilful casuists in the world.

I then presented my project of a declaration of the American
doctrine to be made by us on signing. It had been scratched off
with a pencil in the morning, hastily; but it was well received
by Bourgeois, D'Estournelles, and all the others.

Later we held a meeting of our own delegation, when, to my
project of a declaration stating that nothing contained in any
part of the convention signed here should be considered as
requiring us to intrude, mingle, or entangle ourselves in
European politics or internal affairs, Low made an excellent
addition to the effect that nothing should be considered to
require any abandonment of the traditional attitude of the United
States toward questions purely American; and, with slight verbal
changes, this combination was adopted.

July 25.

All night long I have been tossing about in my bed and thinking
of our declaration of the Monroe Doctrine to be brought before
the conference to-day. We all fear that the conference will not
receive it, or will insist on our signing without it or not
signing at all.

On my way to The Hague from Scheveningen I met M. Descamps, the
eminent professor of international law in the University of
Louvain, and the leading delegate in the conference as regards
intricate legal questions connected with the arbitration plan. He
thought that our best way out of the difficulty was absolutely to
insist on a clause limiting the devoir imposed by article 27, and
to force it to a vote. He declared that, in spite of the French,
it would certainly be carried. This I doubt. M. Descamps knows,
perhaps, more of international law than of the temper of his
associates.

In the afternoon to the "House in the Wood," where the "Final
Act" was read. This is a statement of what has been done, summed
up in the form of three conventions, with sundry declarations,
voeux, etc. We had taken pains to see a number of the leading
delegates, and all, in their anxiety to save the main features of
the arbitration plan, agreed that they would not oppose our
declaration. It was therefore placed in the hands of
Raffalovitch, the Russian secretary, who stood close beside the
president, and as soon as the "Final Act" had been recited he
read this declaration of ours. This was then brought before the
conference in plenary session by M. de Staal, and the conference
was asked whether any one bad any objection, or anything to say
regarding it. There was a pause of about a minute, which seemed
to me about an hour. Not a word was said,--in fact, there was
dead silence,--and so our declaration embodying a reservation in
favor of the Monroe Doctrine was duly recorded and became part of
the proceedings.

Rarely in my life have I had such a feeling of deep relief; for,
during some days past, it has looked as if the arbitration
project, so far as the United States is concerned, would be
wrecked on that wretched little article 27.

I had before me notes of a speech carefully prepared, stating our
reasons and replying to objections, to be used in case we were
attacked, but it was not needed. In the evening I was asked by
Mr. Lavino, the correspondent of the London "Times," to put the
gist of it into an "interview" for the great newspaper which he
serves, and to this I consented; for, during the proceedings this
afternoon in the conference, Sir Julian Pauncefote showed great
uneasiness. He was very anxious that we should withdraw the
declaration altogether, and said, "It will be charged against you
that you propose to evade your duties while using the treaty to
promote your interests"; but I held firm and pressed the matter,
with the result above stated. I feared that he would object in
open conference; but his loyalty to arbitration evidently
deterred him. However, he returned to the charge privately, and I
then promised to make a public statement of our reasons for the
declaration, and this seemed to ease his mind. The result was a
recasting of my proposed speech, and this Mr. Lavino threw into
the form of a long telegram to the "Times."

July 26.

At ten to a meeting of our American delegation, when another
bombshell was thrown among us--nothing less than the question
whether the Pope is to be allowed to become one of the signatory
powers; and this question has now taken a very acute form. Italy
is, of course, utterly opposed to it, and Great Britain will not
sign if any besides those agreed upon by the signatory powers are
allowed to come in hereafter, her motive being, no doubt, to
avoid trouble in regard to the Transvaal.

Mr. Low stated that in the great committee the prevailing opinion
seemed to be that the signatory powers had made a sort of
partnership, and that no new partners could be added without the
consent of all. This is the natural ground, and entirely tenable.

I would have been glad to add the additional requirement that no
power should be admitted which would not make arbitration
reciprocal--that is, no power which, while aiding to arbitrate
for others, would not accept arbitration between itself and
another power. This would, of course, exclude the Vatican; for,
while it desires to judge others, it will allow no interests of
its own, not even the most worldly and trivial, to be submitted
to any earthly tribunal.

The question now came up in our American delegation as to signing
the three conventions in the Acte Final--namely, those relating
to arbitration, to the extension of the Geneva rules, and to the
laws and customs of war. We voted to sign the first, to send the
second to Washington without recommendation, and to send the
third with a recommendation that it be there signed. The reason
for sending the second to Washington without recommendation is
that Captain Mahan feels that, in its present condition, it may
bring on worse evils than it prevents. He especially and, I
think, justly objects to allowing neutral hospital ships to take
on board the wounded and shipwrecked in a naval action, with
power to throw around them the safeguards of neutrality and carry
them off to a neutral port whence they can again regain their own
homes and resume their status as combatants.

The reason for submitting the third to Washington, with a
recommendation to sign it there, is that considerable work will
be required in conforming our laws of war to the standard
proposed by the conference, and that it is best that the
Washington authorities look it over carefully.

I was very anxious to sign all three conventions, but the first
is the great one, and I yielded my views on the last two.

The powers are to have until the 31st of December, if they wish
it, before signing.

July 27.

Early in the morning to a meeting of our American delegation, Mr.
van Karnebeek being present. We agreed to sign the arbitration
convention, attaching to our signatures a reservation embodying
our declaration of July 25 regarding the maintenance of our
American policy--the Monroe Doctrine. A telegram was received
from the State Department approving of this declaration. The
imbroglio regarding the forcing of the Pope into the midst of the
signatory powers continues. The ultramontanes are pushing on
various delegates, especially sundry Austrians and Belgians, who
depend on clerical support for their political existence, and, in
some cases, for their daily bread; and the result is that M.
Descamps, one of the most eminent international lawyers in
Europe, who has rendered great services during the conference,
but who holds a professorship at the University of Louvain, and
can hold it not one moment longer than the Jesuits allow him, is
making a great display of feeling on the subject. Italy, of
course, continues to take the strongest ground against the
proposal to admit his Holiness as an Italian sovereign.

Our position is, as was well stated in the great committee by Mr.
Low, that the contracting parties must all consent before a new
party can come in; and this under one of the simplest principles
of law. We ought also to add that any power thus admitted shall
not only consent to arbitrate on others, but to be arbitrated
upon. This, of course, the Vatican monsignori will never do. They
would see all Europe deluged in blood before they would submit
the pettiest question between the kingdom of Italy and themselves
to arbitration by lay powers. All other things are held by them
utterly subordinate to the restoration of the Pope's temporal
power, though they must know that if it were restored to him
to-morrow he could not hold it. He would be overthrown by a
revolution within a month, even with all the troops which France
or Austria could send to support him; and then we should have the
old miserable state of things again in Italy, with bloodshed,
oppression, and exactions such as took place throughout the first
half of this century, and, indeed, while I was in Italy, under
the old papal authority, in 1856.

In the afternoon to the "House in the Wood" to go over documents
preliminary to signing the "Final Act."

July 28.

In the afternoon in plenary session of the conference, hearing
the final reports as to forms of signing, etc.

To-day appears in the London "Times" the interview which its
correspondent had with me yesterday. It develops the reasons for
our declaration, and seems to give general satisfaction. Sir
Julian Pauncefote told Holls that he liked it much.

The committee on forms of the "Final Act," etc., has at last,
under pressure of all sorts, agreed that the question of
admitting non-signatory powers shall be decided by the signatory
powers, hereafter, through the ordinary medium of diplomatic
correspondence. This is unfortunate for some of the South
American republics, but it will probably in some way inure to the
benefit of the Vatican monsignori.

July 29.

The last and culminating day of the conference.

In the morning the entire body gathered in the great hall of the
"House in the Wood," and each delegation was summoned thence to
sign the protocol, conventions, and declarations. These were laid
out on a long table in the dining-room of the palace, which is
adorned with very remarkable paintings of mythological subjects
imitating bas-reliefs.

All these documents had the places for each signature prepared
beforehand, and our seals, in wax, already placed upon the pages
adjoining the place where each signature was to be. At the
request of the Foreign Office authorities for my seal, I had sent
a day or two beforehand the seal ring which Goldwin Smith gave me
at the founding of Cornell University. It is an ancient carnelian
intaglio which he obtained in Rome, and bears upon its face,
exquisitely engraved, a Winged Victory. This seal I used during
my entire connection with Cornell University, and also as a
member of the Electoral College of the State of New York at
General Grant's second election, when, at the request of the
president of that body, Governor Woodford, it was used in sealing
certificates of the election, which were sent, according to law,
to certain high officials of our government.

I affixed my signature to the arbitration convention, writing in,
as agreed, the proviso that our signatures were subject to the
Monroe Doctrine declaration made in open session of the
conference on July 25. The other members of the American
delegation then signed in proper order. But the two other
conventions we left unsigned. It was with deep regret that I
turned away from these; but the majority of the delegation had
decreed it, and it was difficult to see what other course we
could pursue. I trust that the Washington authorities will
rectify the matter by signing them both.

We also affixed our signatures to the first of the
"declarations."

At three P.M. came the formal closing of the conference. M. de
Staal made an excellent speech, as did Mr. van Karnebeek and M.
de Beaufort, the Netherlands minister of foreign affairs. To
these Count Munster, the presiding delegate from Germany, replied
in French, and apparently extemporaneously. It must have been
pain and grief to him, for he was obliged to speak respectfully,
in the first place, of the conference, which for some weeks he
had affected to despise; and, secondly, of arbitration and the
other measures proposed, which, at least during all the first
part of the conference, he had denounced as a trick and a humbug;
and, finally, he had to speak respectfully of M. de Staal, to
whom he has steadily shown decided dislike. He did the whole
quite well, all things considered; but showed his feelings
clearly, as regarded M. de Staal, by adding to praise of him
greater praise for Mr. van Karnebeek, who has been the main
managing man in the conference in behalf of the Netherlands
Government.

Then to the hotel and began work on the draft of a report,
regarding the whole work of the conference, to the State
Department. I was especially embarrassed by the fact that the
wording of it must be suited to the scruples of my colleague,
Captain Mahan. He is a man of the highest character and of great
ability, whom I respect and greatly like; but, as an old naval
officer, wedded to the views generally entertained by older
members of the naval and military service, he has had very
little, if any, sympathy with the main purposes of the
conference, and has not hesitated to declare his disbelief in
some of the measures which we were especially instructed to
press. In his books he is on record against the immunity of
private property at sea, and in drawing up our memorial to the
conference regarding this latter matter, in making my speech with
reference to it in the conference, and in preparing our report to
the State Department, I have been embarrassed by this fact. It
was important to have unanimity, and it could not be had, so far
as he was concerned, without toning down the whole thing, and,
indeed, leaving out much that in my judgment the documents
emanating from us on the subject ought to contain. So now, in
regard to arbitration, as well as the other measures finally
adopted, his feelings must be considered. Still, his views have
been an excellent tonic; they have effectively prevented any
lapse into sentimentality. When he speaks the millennium fades
and this stern, severe, actual world appears.

I worked until late at night, and then went to Scheveningen
almost in despair.

July 30.

Returned to The Hague early in the morning, and went on again
with the report, working steadily through the day upon it. For
the first time in my life I have thus made Sunday a day of work.
Although I have no conscientious scruples on the subject, it was
bred into me in my childhood and boyhood that Sunday should be
kept free from all manner of work; and so thoroughly was this
rule inculcated that I have borne it in mind ever since, often
resisting very pressing temptation to depart from it.

But to-day there was no alternative, and the whole time until
five o'clock in the afternoon was given to getting my draft
ready.

At five P.M. the American delegation came together, and, to my
surprise, received my report with every appearance of
satisfaction. Mr. Low indicated some places which, in his
opinion, needed modification; and to this I heartily agreed, for
they were generally places where I was myself in doubt.

My draft having thus been presented, I turned it over to Mr. Low,
who agreed to bring it to-morrow morning with such modifications,
omissions, and additions as seemed best to him. The old proverb,
" 'T is always darkest just before daylight," seems exemplified
in the affairs of to-day, since the kind reception given to my
draft of the report, and the satisfaction expressed regarding it,
form a most happy and unexpected sequel to my wretched distrust
regarding the whole matter last night.

July 31.

The American delegation met at eleven in the morning and
discussed my draft. Mr. Low's modifications and additions were
not many and were mainly good. But he omitted some things which I
would have preferred to retain: these being in the nature of a
plea in behalf of arbitration, or, rather, an exhibition of the
advantages which have been secured for it by the conference; but,
between his doubts and Captain Mahan's opposition, I did not care
to contest the matter, and several pages were left out.

At six in the afternoon came the last meeting of our delegation.
The reports, duly engrossed,--namely, the special reports, signed
by Captain Mahan and Captain Crozier, from the first and second
committees of the conference; the special report made by myself,
Mr. Low, and Dr. Holls as members of the third committee; and the
general report covering our whole work, drawn almost entirely by
me, but signed by all the members of the commission,--were
presented, re-read, and signed, after which the delegation
adjourned, sine die.

August 1.

After some little preliminary work on matters connected with the
winding up of our commission, went with my private secretary, Mr.
Vickery, to Amsterdam, visiting the old church, the palace, the
Zoological Gardens, etc. Thence to Gouda and saw the
stained-glass windows in the old church there, which I have so
long desired to study.

August 3.

At 8.30 left The Hague and went by rail, via Cologne and
Ehreinbreitstein, to Homburg, arriving in the evening.

August 5.

This morning resumed my duties as ambassador at Berlin.

There was one proceeding at the final meeting of the conference
which I have omitted, but which really ought to find a place in
this diary. Just before the final speeches, to the amazement of
all and almost to the stupefaction of many, the president, M. de
Staal, handed to the secretary, without comment, a paper which
the latter began to read. It turned out to be a correspondence
which had taken place, just before the conference, between the
Queen of the Netherlands and the Pope.

The Queen's letter--written, of course, by her ministers, in the
desire to placate the Catholic party, which holds the balance of
power in the Netherlands--dwelt most respectfully on the high
functions of his Holiness, etc., etc., indicating, if not saying,
that it was not the fault of her government that he was not
invited to join in the conference.

The answer from the Pope was a masterpiece of Vatican skill. In
it he referred to what he claimed was his natural position as a
peacemaker on earth, dwelling strongly on this point.

The reading of these papers was received in silence, and not a
word was publicly said afterward regarding them, though in
various quarters there was very deep feeling. It was felt that
the Dutch Government had taken this means of forestalling local
Dutch opposition, and that it was a purely local matter of
political partizanship that ought never to have been intruded
upon a conference of the whole world.

I had no feeling of this sort, for it seemed to me well enough
that the facts should be presented; but a leading representative
of one of the great Catholic powers, who drove home with us, was
of a different mind. This eminent diplomatist from one of the
strongest Catholic countries, and himself a Catholic, spoke in
substance as follows: "The Vatican has always been, and is
to-day, a storm-center. The Pope and his advisers have never
hesitated to urge on war, no matter how bloody, when the
slightest of their ordinary worldly purposes could be served by
it. The great religious wars of Europe were entirely stirred up
and egged on by them; and, as everybody knows, the Pope did
everything to prevent the signing of the treaty of Munster, which
put an end to the dreadful Thirty Years' War, even going so far
as to declare the oaths taken by the plenipotentiaries at that
congress of no effect.

"All through the middle ages and at the Renaissance period the
Popes kept Italy in turmoil and bloodshed for their own family
and territorial advantages, and they kept all Europe in turmoil,
for two centuries after the Reformation,--in fact, just as long
as they could,--in the wars of religion. They did everything they
could to stir up the war between Austria and Prussia in 1866,
thinking that Austria, a Catholic power, was sure to win; and
then everything possible to stir up the war of France against
Prussia in 1870 in order to accomplish the same purpose of
checking German Protestantism; and now they are doing all they
can to arouse hatred, even to deluge Italy in blood, in the vain
attempt to recover the temporal power, though they must know that
they could not hold it for any length of time even if they should
obtain it.

"They pretend to be anxious to 'save souls,' and especially to
love Poland and Ireland; but they have for years used those
countries as mere pawns in their game with Russia and Great
Britain, and would sell every Catholic soul they contain to the
Greek and English churches if they could thereby secure the
active aid of those two governments against Italy. They have
obliged the Italian youth to choose between patriotism and
Christianity, and the result is that the best of these have
become atheists. Their whole policy is based on stirring up
hatred and promoting conflicts from which they hope to draw
worldly advantage.

"In view of all this, one stands amazed at the cool statements of
the Vatican letter."

These were the words of an eminent Roman Catholic representative
of a Roman Catholic power, and to them I have nothing to add.

In looking back calmly over the proceedings of the conference, I
feel absolutely convinced that it has accomplished a great work
for the world.

The mere assembling of such a body for such a purpose was a
distinct gain; but vastly more important is the positive outcome
of its labors.

First of these is the plan of arbitration. It provides a court
definitely constituted; a place of meeting easily accessible; a
council for summoning it always in session; guarantees for
perfect independence; and a suitable procedure.

Closely connected with this is the provision for "international
commissions of inquiry," which cannot fail to do much in clearing
up issues likely to lead to war between nations. Thus we may
hope, when there is danger of war, for something better than that
which the world has hitherto heard--the clamor of interested
parties and the shrieks of sensation newspapers. The natural
result will be, as in the Venezuelan difficulty between the
United States and Great Britain, that when a commission of this
sort has been set at work to ascertain the facts, the howling of
partizans and screaming of sensation-mongers will cease, and the
finding of the commission be calmly awaited.

So, too, the plans adopted for mediation can hardly fail to aid
in keeping off war. The plans for "special mediation" and
"seconding powers," which emanated entirely from the American
delegation, and which were adopted unanimously by the great
committee and by the conference, seem likely to prove in some
cases an effective means of preventing hostilities, and even of
arresting them after they have begun. Had it been in operation
during our recent war with Spain, it would probably have closed
it immediately after the loss of Cervera's fleet, and would have
saved many lives and much treasure.

Secondly, the extension of the Geneva rules, hitherto adopted for
war on land, to war also on the sea is a distinct gain in the
cause of mercy.

Thirdly, the amelioration and more careful definition of the laws
of war must aid powerfully in that evolution of mercy and right
reason which has been going on for hundreds of years, and
especially since the great work of Grotius.

In addition to these gains may well be mentioned the
declarations, expressions of opinion, and utterance of wishes for
continued study and persevering effort to make the
instrumentalities of war less cruel and destructive.

It has been said not infrequently that the conference missed a
great opportunity when it made the resort to arbitration
voluntary and not obligatory. Such an objection can come only
from those who have never duly considered the problem concerned.
Obligatory arbitration between states is indeed possible in
various petty matters, but in many great matters absolutely
impossible. While a few nations were willing to accept it in
regard to these minor matters,--as, for example, postal or
monetary difficulties and the like,--not a single power was
willing to bind itself by a hard-and-fast rule to submit all
questions to it--and least of all the United States.

The reason is very simple: to do so would be to increase the
chances of war and to enlarge standing armies throughout the
world. Obligatory arbitration on all questions would enable any
power, at any moment, to bring before the tribunal any other
power against which it has, or thinks it has, a grievance. Greece
might thus summon Turkey; France might summon Germany; the
Papacy, Italy; England, Russia; China, Japan; Spain, the United
States, regarding matters in which the deepest of human
feelings--questions of religion, questions of race, questions
even of national existence--are concerned. To enforce the
decisions of a tribunal in such cases would require armies
compared to which those of the present day are a mere bagatelle,
and plunge the world into a sea of troubles compared to which
those now existing are as nothing. What has been done is to
provide a way, always ready and easily accessible, by which
nations can settle most of their difficulties with each other.
Hitherto, securing a court of arbitration has involved first the
education of public opinion in two nations; next, the action of
two national legislatures; then the making of a treaty; then the
careful selection of judges on both sides; then delays by the
jurists thus chosen in disposing of engagements and duties to
which they are already pledged-all these matters requiring much
labor and long time; and this just when speedy action is most
necessary to arrest the development of international anger. Under
the system of arbitration now presented, the court can be brought
into session at short notice--easily, as regards most nations,
within a few weeks, at the farthest. When to these advantages are
added the provisions for delaying war and for improving the laws
of war, the calm judgment of mankind will, I fully believe,
decide that the conference has done a work of value to the world.

There is also another gain--incidental, but of real and permanent
value; and this is the inevitable development of the Law of
Nations by the decisions of such a court of arbitration composed
of the most eminent jurists from all countries. Thus far it has
been evolved from the writings of scholars often conflicting,
from the decisions of national courts biased by local patriotism,
from the practices of various powers, on land and sea, more in
obedience to their interests than to their sense of justice; but
now we may hope for the growth of a great body of international
law under the best conditions possible, and ever more and more in
obedience to the great impulse given by Grotius in the direction
of right reason and mercy.

CHAPTER L

HINTS FOR REFORMS IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

In view of a connection with the diplomatic service of the United
States begun nearly fifty years ago and resumed at various posts
and periods since, I have frequently been asked for my opinion of
it, as compared with that of other nations, and also what
measures I would suggest for its improvement. Hitherto this
question has somewhat embarrassed me: answering it fully might
have seemed to involve a plea for my own interests; so that,
while I have pointed out, in public lectures and in letters to
men of influence, sundry improvements, I have not hitherto
thought it best to go fully into the subject.

But what I now say will not see the light until my diplomatic
career is finished forever, and I may claim to speak now for what
seems to me the good of the service and of the country. I shall
make neither personal complaint of the past nor personal plea for
the future. As to the past, my experience showed me years ago
what I had to expect if I continued in the service--insufficient
salary, unfit quarters, inadequate means of discharging my
duties, and many other difficulties which ought not to have
existed, but which I knew to exist when I took office, and of
which I have therefore no right to complain. As to the future, I
can speak all the more clearly and earnestly because even my
enemies, if I have any, must confess that nothing which is now to
be done can inure to my personal benefit.

As to the present condition, then, of our diplomatic service, it
seems to me a mixture of good and evil. It is by no means so bad
as it once was, and by no means so good as it ought to be and as
it could very easily be made. There has been great improvement in
it since the days of the Civil War. The diplomatic service of no
other country, probably, was so disfigured by eminently unworthy
members as was our own during the quarter of a century preceding
the inauguration of President Lincoln, and, indeed, during a part
of the Lincoln administration itself.

During one presidential term previous to that time our ministers
at three of the most important centers of Europe were making
unedifying spectacles of themselves, whenever it was possible for
them to do so, before the courts to which they were accredited.
On one occasion of court festivity, one of them, in a gorgeous
uniform such as American ministers formerly wore, ran howling
through the mud in the streets of St. Petersburg, the high
personages of the empire looking out upon him from the windows of
the Winter Palace. Sundry other performances of his, to which I
have referred in the account of my Russian mission, were quite as
discreditable.

Another American representative, stationed at Berlin during that
same period, disgraced his country by notorious drunkenness; and
though some of our countrymen at that capital sought to keep him
sober for his first presentation to the King, they were
unsuccessful. Happily, his wild conduct did not culminate abroad;
for a murder which he committed in a drunken fit did not occur
until after his return to our country. A third American
representative at that period published regularly, in his home
newspaper, such scurrilous letters regarding the authorities of
the country to which he was accredited, his colleagues in the
diplomatic service, and, indeed, the country itself, that,
according to common report, his early return home was caused by
his desire to escape the consequences. These were the worst, but
there were others utterly unfit,--men who not only spoke no other
language used in diplomatic intercourse, but could not even speak
with fairly grammatical decency their own. As to the early days
of Mr. Lincoln's administration, there is a well-authenticated
story that, a gentleman having expostulated with the Secretary of
State, Mr. Seward, for sending to a very important diplomatic
post a man whose conduct was the reverse of exemplary, Mr. Seward
replied, "Sir, some persons are sent abroad because they are
needed abroad, and some are sent because they are NOT wanted at
home."

It is a great pleasure to note that since the war both of the
political parties have greatly improved in this respect, and that
the standard of diplomatic appointments has become much higher.
It is a duty as well as a pleasure to acknowledge here that no
President of the United States has ever taken more pains to make
the diplomatic and consular services what they should be than a
representative of the party to which I have always been
opposed--President Cleveland. Especially encouraging is the fact
that public opinion has become sensitive on this subject, and
that the only recent case of gross misconduct by an American
minister in foreign parts was immediately followed by his recall.

And it ought also to be said, even regarding our diplomatic
system in the past, that sundry sneers of the pessimists do our
country wrong. It is certain that no other country has been
steadily represented in Great Britain by a series of more
distinguished citizens than has our own,--beginning with John
Adams, and including the gentleman who at present holds the
position of ambassador to the Court of St. James. Much may also
be said to the credit of our embassies and legations generally at
the leading capitals of Europe. As to unfortunate exceptions,
those who are acquainted with diplomatists in different parts of
the world know that, whatever may have been the failings of the
United States in this respect, she has not been the only nation
which has made mistakes in selecting foreign representatives.

Our service at the present day is, in some respects, excellent;
but it is badly organized, insufficiently provided for, and, as a
rule, has not the standing which every patriotic American should
wish for it.

I have frequently received letters from bright, active-minded
young men stating that they were desirous of fitting themselves
for a diplomatic career, and asking advice regarding the best way
of doing so; but I have felt obliged to warn every one of them
that, strictly speaking, there is no American diplomatic service;
that there is no guarantee of employment to them, even if they
fit themselves admirably; no security in their tenure of office,
even if they were appointed; and little, if any, probability of
their promotion, however excellent their record. Moreover, I have
felt obliged to tell them that the service, such as it is,
especially as regards ambassadors and ministers, is a service
with a property qualification; that it is not a democratic
service resting upon merit, but an aristocratic service resting
largely upon wealth,--a very important--indeed,
essential--qualification for it being that any American who
serves as ambassador must, as a rule, be able to expend, in
addition to his salary, at least from twelve to twenty thousand
dollars a year, and that the demands upon ministers
plenipotentiary are but little less.

And yet, if Congress would seriously give attention to the
matter, calling before a proper committee those of its own
members, and others, who are well acquainted with the necessities
of the service, and would take common-sense advice, it could
easily be made one of the best, and quite possibly the best, in
the world. The most essential and desirable improvements which I
would present are as follows:

I. As regards the first and highest grade in the diplomatic
service, that of ambassadors, I would have at least one half
their whole number appointed from those who have distinguished
themselves as ministers plenipotentiary, and the remaining posts
filled, as at present, from those who, in public life or in other
important fields, have won recognition at home as men fit to
maintain the character and represent the interests of their
country abroad.

II. As regards the second grade in the service,--namely, that of
ministers plenipotentiary,--I would observe the same rule as in
appointing ambassadors, having at least a majority of these at
the leading capitals appointed from such as shall have especially
distinguished themselves at the less important capitals, and a
majority of the ministers plenipotentiary at these less important
capitals appointed from those who shall have distinguished
themselves as ministers resident, or as secretaries of embassy or
of legation.

III. As to the third grade in our service, that of ministers
resident, I would observe the general rule above suggested for
the appointment of ambassadors and ministers plenipotentiary;
that is, I would appoint a majority of them from among those who
shall have rendered most distinguished service as first
secretaries of embassy or of legation. When once appointed I
would have them advanced, for distinguished service, from the
less to the more important capitals, and, so far as possible,
from the ranks of ministers resident to those of ministers
plenipotentiary.

IV. As to the lower or special or temporary grades, whether that
of diplomatic agent or special charge d'affaires or commissioner,
I would have appointments made from the diplomatic or consular
service, or from public life in general, or from fitting men in
private life, as the President or the Secretary of State might
think the most conducive to the public interest.

V. I would have two grades of secretaries of legation, and three
grades of secretaries of embassy. I would have the lowest grade
of secretaries appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary
of State from those who have shown themselves, on due
examination, best qualified in certain leading subjects, such as
international law, the common law, the civil law, the history of
treaties, and general modern history, political economy, a
speaking knowledge of French, and a reading knowledge of at least
one other foreign language. I would make the examination in all
the above subjects strict, and would oblige the Secretary of
State to make his selection of secretaries of legation from the
men thus presented. But, in view of the importance of various
personal qualifications which fit men to influence their
fellow-men, and which cannot be ascertained wholly by
examination, I would leave the Secretary of State full liberty of
choice among those who have honorably passed the examinations
above required. The men thus selected and approved I would have
appointed as secretaries of lower grades,--that is, third
secretaries of embassy and second secretaries of legation,--and
these, when once appointed, should be promoted, for good service,
to the higher secretaryships of embassy and legation, and from
the less to the more important capitals, under such rules as the
State Department might find most conducive to the efficiency of
the service. No secretaries of any grade should thereafter be
appointed who had not passed the examinations required for the
lowest grade of secretaries as above provided; but all who had
already been in the service during two years should be eligible
for promotion, without any further examination, from whatever
post they might be occupying.

VI. I would attach to every embassy three secretaries, to every
legation two, and to every post of minister resident at least
one.

One of the thoroughly wise arrangements of every British embassy
or legation--an arrangement which has gone for much in Great
Britain's remarkable series of diplomatic successes throughout
the world--is to be seen in her maintaining at every capital a
full number of secretaries and attaches, who serve not only in
keeping the current office work in the highest efficiency, but
who become, as it were, the ANTENNAE of the ambassador or
minister--additional eyes and ears to ascertain what is going on
among those most influential in public affairs. Every embassy or
legation thus equipped serves also as an actual and practical
training-school for the service.

VII. I would appoint each attache from the ranks of those
especially recommended, and certified to in writing by leading
authorities in the department to which he is expected to supply
information: as, for example, for military attaches, the War
Department; for naval attaches, the Navy Department; for
financial attaches, the Treasury Department; for commercial
attaches, the Department of Commerce; for agricultural attaches,
the Department of Agriculture; but always subject to the approval
of the Secretary of State as regards sundry qualifications hinted
at above, which can better be ascertained by an interview than by
an examination.

I would have a goodly number of attaches of these various sorts,
and, in our more important embassies, one representing each of
the departments above named. Every attache, if fit for his place,
would be worth far more than his cost to our government, for he
would not only add to the influence of the embassy or legation,
but decidedly to its efficiency. As a rule, all of them could
also be made of real use after the conclusion of their foreign
careers: some by returning to the army or navy and bringing their
knowledge to bear on those branches of the service; some by
taking duty in the various departments at Washington, and aiding
to keep our government abreast of the best practice in other
countries; some by becoming professors in universities and
colleges, and thus aiding to disseminate useful information; some
by becoming writers for the press, thus giving us, instead of
loose guesses and haphazard notions, information and suggestions
based upon close knowledge of important problems and of their
solution in countries other than our own

From these arrangements I feel warranted in expecting a very
great improvement in our diplomatic service. Thus formed, it
would become, in its main features, like the military and naval
services, and, indeed, in its essential characteristics as to
appointment and promotion, like any well-organized manufacturing
or commercial establishment. It would absolutely require
ascertained knowledge and fitness in the lowest grades, and would
give promotion for good service from first to last. Yet it would
not be a cast-iron system: a certain number of men who had shown
decided fitness in various high public offices, or in important
branches of public or private business, could be appointed,
whenever the public interest should seem to require it, as
ministers resident, ministers plenipotentiary, and ambassadors,
without having gone through examination or regular promotion.

But the system now proposed, while thus allowing the frequent
bringing in of new and capable men from public life at home,
requires that a large proportion of each grade above that of
secretary, save a very small number of diplomatic agents,
commissioners, and the like, shall be appointed from those
thoroughly trained for the service, and that all secretaries,
without exception, shall be thoroughly trained and fitted. Scope
would thus be given to the activity of both sorts of men, and the
whole system made sufficiently elastic to meet all necessities.

In the service thus organized, the class of ambassadors and
ministers fitted by knowledge of public affairs at home for
important negotiations, but unacquainted with diplomatic life or
foreign usages and languages, would be greatly strengthened by
secretaries who had passed through a regular course of training
and experience. An American diplomatic representative without
diplomatic experience, on reaching his post, whether as
ambassador or minister, would not find--as was once largely the
case--secretaries as new as himself to diplomatic business, but
men thoroughly prepared to aid him in the multitude of minor
matters, ignorance of which might very likely cripple him as
regards very important business: secretaries so experienced as to
be able to set him in the way of knowing, at any court, who are
the men of real power, and who mere parasites and pretenders,
what relations are to be cultivated and what avoided, which are
the real channels of influence, and which mere illusions leading
nowhither. On the other hand, the secretaries thoroughly trained
would doubtless, in their conversation with a man fresh from
public affairs at home, learn many things of use to them.

Thus, too, what is of great importance throughout the entire
service, every ambassador, minister plenipotentiary, or minister
resident would possess, or easily command, large experience of
various men in various countries. At the same time, each would be
under most powerful incentives to perfect his training, widen his
acquaintance, and deepen his knowledge--incentives which, under
the old system,--which we may hope is now passing away,--with its
lack of appointment for ascertained fitness, lack of promotion
for good service, and lack of any certainty of tenure, do not
exist.

The system of promotion for merit throughout the service is no
mere experiment; the good sense of all the leading nations in the
world, except our own, has adopted it, and it works well. In our
own service the old system works badly; excellent men, both in
its higher and lower grades, have been frequently crippled by
want of proper experience or aid. We have, indeed, several
admirable secretaries--some of them fit to be ambassadors or
ministers, but all laboring under conditions the most depressing
--such as obtain in no good business enterprise. During my stay
as minister at St. Petersburg, the secretary of legation, a man
ideally fitted for the post, insisted on resigning. On my
endeavoring to retain him, he answered as follows: "I have been
over twelve years in the American diplomatic service as
secretary; I have seen the secretaries here, from all other
countries, steadily promoted until all of them still remaining in
the service are in higher posts, several of them ministers, and
some ambassadors. I remain as I was at the beginning, with no
promotion, and no probability of any. I feel that, as a rule, my
present colleagues, as well as most officials with whom I have to
do, seeing that I have not been advanced, look upon me as a
failure. They cannot be made to understand how a man who has
served so long as secretary has been denied promotion for any
reason save inefficiency. I can no longer submit to be thus
looked down upon, and I must resign."

While thus having a system of promotion based upon efficiency, I
would retain during good behavior, up to a certain age, the men
who have done thoroughly well in the service. Clearly, when we
secure an admirable man,--recognized as such in all parts of the
world,--like Mr. Wheaton, Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Charles Francis
Adams, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Townsend Harris, Mr. Washburne, Mr. Lowell,
Mr. Bayard, Mr. Phelps, and others who have now passed away, not
to speak of many now living, we should keep him at his post as
long as he is efficient, without regard to his politics. This is
the course taken very generally by other great nations, and
especially by our sister republic of Great Britain (for Great
Britain is simply a republic with a monarchical figurehead
lingering along on good behavior): she retains her
representatives in these positions, and promotes them without any
regard to their party relations. During my first official
residence at Berlin, although the home government at London was
of the Conservative party, it retained at the German capital, as
ambassador, Lord Ampthill, a Liberal; and, as first secretary,
Sir John Walsham, a Tory. From every point of view, the long
continuance in diplomatic positions of the most capable men would
be of great advantage to our country.

But, as the very first thing to be done, whether our diplomatic
service remains as at present or be improved, I would urge, as a
condition precedent to any thoroughly good service, that there be
in each of the greater capitals of the world at which we have a
representative, a suitable embassy or legation building or
apartment, owned or leased for a term of years by the American
Government Every other great power, and many of the smaller
nations, have provided such quarters for their representatives,
and some years ago President Cleveland recommended to Congress a
similar policy. Under the present system the head of an American
embassy or mission abroad is at a wretched disadvantage. In many
capitals he finds it at times impossible to secure a proper
furnished apartment; and, in some, very difficult to find any
suitable apartment at all, whether furnished or unfurnished. Even
if he finds proper rooms, they are frequently in an unfit quarter
of the town, remote from the residences of his colleagues, from
the public offices, from everybody and everything related to his
work. His term of office being generally short, he is usually
considered a rather undesirable tenant, and is charged
accordingly. Besides this, the fitting and furnishing of such an
apartment is a very great burden, both as regards trouble and
expense. I have twice thus fitted and furnished a large apartment
in Berlin, and in each case this represented an expenditure of
more than the salary for the first year. Within my own knowledge,
two American ministers abroad have impoverished their families by
expenditures of this kind. But this is not the worst. The most
serious result of the existing system concerns our country. I
have elsewhere shown how, in one very important international
question at St. Petersburg, our mistaken policy in this respect
once cost the United States a sum which would have forever put
that embassy, and, indeed, many others besides, on the very best
footing. If an American ambassador is to exercise a really strong
influence for the United States as against other nations he must
be properly provided for as regards his residence and
support,--not provided for, indeed, so largely as some
representatives of other nations; for I neither propose nor
desire that the American representative shall imitate the pomp of
certain ambassadors of the greater European powers. But he ought
to be enabled to live respectably, and to discharge his duties
efficiently. There should be, in this respect, what Thomas
Jefferson acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence as a
duty,--"a decent regard for the opinions of mankind." The present
condition of things is frequently humiliating. In the greater
capitals of Europe the general public know the British, French,
Austrian, Italian, and all other important embassies or
legations, except that of our country. The American embassy or
legation has no settled home, is sometimes in one quarter of the
town, sometimes in another, sometimes almost in an attic,
sometimes almost in a cellar, generally inadequate in its
accommodations, and frequently unfortunate in its surroundings.
Both my official terms at St. Petersburg showed me that one
secret of the great success of British diplomacy, in all parts of
the world, is that especial pains are taken regarding this point,
and that, consequently, every British embassy is the center of a
wide-spread social influence which counts for very much indeed in
her political influence. The United States, as perhaps the
wealthiest nation in existence,--a nation far-reaching in the
exercise of its foreign policy, with vast and increasing
commercial and other interests throughout the world,--should, in
all substantial matters, be equally well provided for. Take our
recent relations with Turkey. We have insisted on the payment of
an indemnity for the destruction of American property, and we
have constantly a vast number of Americans of the very best sort,
and especially our missionaries, who have to be protected
throughout the whole of that vast empire. Each of the other great
powers provides its representative at Constantinople with a
residence honorable, suitable, and within a proper inclosure for
its protection; but the American minister lives anywhere and
everywhere,--in such premises, over shops and warehouses, as can
be secured,--and he is liable, in case of trouble between the two
nations, to suffer personal violence and to have his house sacked
by a Turkish mob. No foreign people, and least of all an Oriental
people, can highly respect a diplomatic representative who, by
his surroundings, seems not to be respected by his own people.
The American Government can easily afford the expenditure needed
to provide proper houses or apartments for its entire diplomatic
corps, but it can hardly afford NOT to provide these. Full
provision for them would not burden any American citizen to the
amount of the half of a Boston biscuit. Leaving matters in their
present condition is, in the long run, far more costly. I once
had occasion to consider this matter in the light of economy, and
found that the cost of the whole diplomatic service of the United
States during an entire year was only equal to the expenditure in
one of our recent wars during four hours; so that if any member
of the diplomatic service should delay a declaration of war
merely for the space of a day, he would defray the cost of the
service for about six years.

Mr. Charles Francis Adams, by his admirable diplomatic dealing
with the British Foreign Office at the crisis of our Civil War,
prevented the coming out of the later Confederate cruisers to
prey upon our commerce, and, in all probability, thus averted a
quarrel with Great Britain which would have lengthened our Civil
War by many years, and doubtless have cost us hundreds of
millions.

General Woodford, our recent minister at Madrid, undoubtedly
delayed our war with Spain for several months, and skilful
diplomatic intervention brought that war to a speedy close just
as soon as our military and naval successes made it possible.

The cases are also many where our diplomatic representatives have
quieted ill feelings which would have done great harm to our
commerce. These facts show that the diplomatic service may well
be called "The Cheap Defense of Nations."

When, in addition to this, an American recalls such priceless
services to civilization, and to the commerce of our country and
of the world, as those rendered by Mr. Townsend Harris while
American minister in Japan, the undoubted saving through a long
series of years of many lives and much property by our ministers
in such outlying parts of the world as Turkey and China, the
promotion of American commercial and other interests, and the
securing of information which has been precious to innumerable
American enterprises, it seems incontestable that our diplomatic
service ought not to be left in its present slipshod condition.
It ought to be put on the best and most effective footing
possible, so that everywhere the men we send forth to support and
advance the manifold interests of our country shall be thoroughly
well equipped and provided for. To this end the permanent
possession of a suitable house or apartment in every capital is
the foremost and most elementary of necessities.

And while such a provision is the first thing, it would be wise
to add, as other nations do, a moderate allowance for furniture,
and for keeping the embassy or legation properly cared for during
the interim between the departure of one representative and the
arrival of another.

If this were done, the prestige of the American name and the
effectiveness of the service would be vastly improved, and
diplomatic posts would be no longer so onerous and, indeed,
ruinous as they have been to some of the best men we have sent
abroad.

And in order fully to free my mind I will add that, while the
provision for a proper embassy or legation building is the first
of all things necessary, it might also be well to increase
somewhat the salaries of our representatives abroad. These may
seem large even at present; but the cost of living has greatly
increased since they were fixed, and the special financial
demands upon an ambassador or minister at any of the most
important posts are always far beyond the present salary. It is
utterly impossible for an American diplomatic representative to
do his duty upon the salary now given, even while living on the
most moderate scale known in the diplomatic corps. To attempt to
do so would deprive him of all opportunity to exercise that
friendly, personal, social influence which is so important an
element in his success.

To sum up my suggestions as to this part of the subject, I should
say: First, that, as a rule, there should be provided at each
diplomatic post where the United States has a representative a
spacious and suitable house, either bought by our government or
taken on a long lease; and that there should be a small
appropriation each year for maintaining it as regards furniture,
care, etc. Secondly, that American representatives of the highest
grade--namely, ambassadors--should have a salary of at least
$25,000 a year; and that diplomatic representatives of lower
grade should have their salaries raised in the same proportion.
Thirdly, that an additional number of secretaries and attaches
should be provided in the manner and for the reasons above
recommended.

If the carrying out of these reforms should require an
appropriation to the diplomatic service fifty per cent. higher
than it now is,--which is an amount greater than would really be
required by all the expenditures I propose, including interest
upon the purchase money of appropriate quarters for our
representatives abroad,--the total additional cost to each
citizen of the United States would be less than half a cent each
year.

The first result of these and other reforms which I have
indicated, beginning with what is of the very first
importance,--provision for a proper house or apartment in every
capital,--would certainly be increased respect for the United
States and increased effectiveness of its foreign
representatives.

As to the other reforms, such as suitable requirements for
secretaryships, and proper promotion throughout the whole
service, they would vastly increase its attractiveness, in all
its grades, to the very men whom the country most needs. They
would open to young men in our universities and colleges a most
honorable career, leading such institutions to establish courses
of instruction with reference to such a service--courses which
were established long since in Germany, but which have arrived
nearest perfection in two of our sister republics--at the
University of Zurich in Switzerland, and in the ecole Libre des
Sciences Politiques in Paris.

It seems certain that a diplomatic service established and
maintained in the manner here indicated would not only vastly
increase the prestige and influence of the United States among
her sister nations, but, purely from a commercial point of view,
would amply repay us. To have in diplomatic positions at the
various capitals men thoroughly well fitted not only as regards
character and intellect, but also as regards experience and
acquaintance, and to have them so provided for as to become the
social equals of their colleagues, would be, from every point of
view, of the greatest advantage to our country materially and
politically, and would give strength to our policy throughout the
world.

And, finally, to a matter worth mentioning only because it has at
sundry times and in divers manners been comically argued and
curiously misrepresented--the question as to a diplomatic
uniform.

As regards any principle involved, I have never been able to see
any reason, a priori, why, if we have a uniform for our military
service and another for our naval service, we may not have one
for our diplomatic service. It has, indeed, been asserted by
sundry orators dear to the galleries, as well as by various
"funny-column" men, that such a uniform is that of a lackey; but
this assertion loses force when one reflects on the solemn fact
that "plain evening dress," which these partizans of Jeffersonian
simplicity laud and magnify, and which is the only alternative to
a uniform, is worn by table-waiters the world over.

Yet, having conceded so much, truth compels me to add that,
having myself never worn anything save "plain evening dress" at
any court to which I have been accredited, or at any function
which I have attended, I have never been able to discover the
slightest disadvantage to my country or myself from that fact.

Colleagues of mine, clad in resplendent uniforms, have, indeed,
on more than one occasion congratulated me on being allowed a
more simple and comfortable costume; and though such expressions
are, of course, to be taken with some grains of allowance, I have
congratulated myself with the deepest sincerity on my freedom
from what seems to me a most tiresome yoke.

The discussion of a question of such vast importance--to the
censors above referred to--would be inadequate were mention not
made of a stumbling-block which does not seem to have been
adequately considered by those who propose a return to the
earlier practice of our Republic --and this is, that the uniform
is, at any European court, but a poor thing unless it bears some
evidence of distinguished service, in the shape of stars,
crosses, ribbons, and the like. A British ambassador, or minister
plenipotentiary, in official uniform, but without the ribbon or
star of the Bath or other honorable order, would appear to little
advantage indeed. A representative of the French Republic would
certainly prefer to wear the plainest dress rather than the most
splendid uniform unadorned by the insignia of the Legion of
Honor, and, in a general way, the same may be said of the
representatives of all nations which approve the wearing of a
diplomatic uniform.

But our own Republic bestows no such "decorations," and allows
none of its representatives, during their term of office, to
receive them; so that, if put into uniform, these representatives
must appear to the great mass of beholders as really of inferior
quality, undistinguished by any adornments which indicate good
service.

All this difficulty our present practice avoids. The American
ambassador, or minister, is known at once by the fact that he
alone wears plain evening dress; and this fact, as well as the
absence of decorations, being recognized as in simple conformity
with the ideas and customs of his country, rather adds to his
prestige than diminishes it, as far as I have been able to
discover. Perhaps the well-known case of Lord Castlereagh at the
Congress of Vienna is in point. In the midst of the throng of his
colleagues, all of them most gorgeously arrayed in uniforms,
stars, and decorations of every sort, he appeared in the simplest
evening attire; and the attention of Metternich being called to
this fact, that much experienced, infinitely bespangled statesman
answered, "Ma foi! il est bien distingue."

Of course we ought to give due weight to the example set by
Benjamin Franklin when presented to Louis XVI, and the fact that
his simple shoe-strings nearly threw the court chamberlains into
fainting-fits, and that his plain dress had an enormous influence
on public opinion; but, alas! we have also to take account of the
statement by an eminent critic to the effect that Franklin, at
his previous presentation to Louis XV, had worn court dress, and
that he wore similar gorgeous attire at various other public
functions, with the inference that he was prevented from doing
so, when received by Louis XVI, only by the fact that somehow his
court dress was inaccessible.[10]

[10] See Sainte-Beuve, "Causeries du Lundi," Vol. VII, Article of
November 29, 1852.

All these facts, conflicting, but more or less pertinent, being
duly considered, I would have the rule regarding dress remain as
it is, save in the rare cases when the sovereign of a country, at
some special function, requests some modification of it. In such
case the Secretary of State might, one would suppose, be allowed
to grant a dispensation from the ordinary rule without any danger
to American liberty.

For the more profound considerations which this vast subject
suggests, the judicious reader may well consult "Sartor
Resartus."

PART VI

SUNDRY JOURNEYS AND EXPERIENCES

CHAPTER LI

EARLIER EXCURSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES--1838-1875

From my boyhood I have been fond of travel, and at times this
fondness has been of great use to me. My constitution, though
never robust, has thus far proved elastic, and whenever I have at
last felt decidedly the worse for overwork or care, the best of
all medicines has been an excursion, longer or shorter, in our
own country or in some other. Thus it has happened that, besides
journeys into nearly every part of the United States, and
official residences in Russia, France, Germany, and the West
Indies, I have made frequent visits to Europe--among them ten or
twelve to Italy, and even more to Germany, France, and England,
besides excursions into the Scandinavian countries, Egypt,
Greece, and Turkey. To most of these I have alluded in other
chapters; but there are a few remaining possibly worthy of note.

The first of these journeys was taken when I went with my father
and mother from the little country town where we then lived to
Syracuse, Buffalo, and Niagara. This must have been in 1838, when
I was about six years of age. Every step of it interested me
keenly. Like the shop-girl in Emile Souvestre's story, who
journeyed from Paris to St. Cloud, I was "amazed to find the
world so large." Syracuse, which now has about one hundred and
twenty thousand inhabitants, had then, perhaps, five thousand;
the railways which were afterward consolidated into the New York
Central were not yet built, and we traveled mainly upon the
canal, though at times over wretchedly muddy roads. Niagara made
a great impression upon me, and Buffalo, with its steamers,
seemed as great then as London seems now.

Four years later, in 1842, I was taken to the hills of middle
Massachusetts to visit my great-grandfather and
great-grandmother, and thence to Boston, where Faneuil Hall, the
Bunker Hill Monument, Harvard College, and Mount Auburn greatly
impressed me. Returning home, we came by steamer through the
Sound to the city of New York, and stayed at a hotel near Trinity
Church, which was then a little south of the central part of the
city. On another visit, somewhat later, we were lodged at the
Astor House, near the City Hall, which was then at the very
center of everything, and thence took excursions far northward
into the uttermost parts of the city, and even beyond it, to see
the newly erected Grace Church and the reservoir at Forty-second
Street, which were among the wonders of the town. Most of all was
I impressed by the service in the newly erected Trinity Church.
The idea uppermost in my mind was that here was a building which
was to last for hundreds of years, and that the figures in the
storied windows above the altar would look down upon new
generations of worshipers, centuries after I, with all those
living, should have passed away. My feeling for religious music
was then, as since, very deep; and the organ of Trinity gave
satisfaction to this feeling; the tremulous ground-tone of the
great pedal diapasons thrilling me through and through.

At this period, about 1843, began my visits with the family to
Saratoga. My grandfather, years before, had derived benefit from
its waters, and the tradition of this, as well as the fact that
my father there met socially his business correspondents from
different parts of the State, led to our going year after year.
Drinking the waters, taking life easily upon the piazzas of the
great hotels festooned with Virginia creepers, and driving to the
lake, formed then, as now, the main occupations of the day. But
there was then one thing which has now ceased: in many of the
greater hotels public prayers were held every evening, some
eminent clergyman officiating; and a leader in these services was
David Leavitt, a famous New York bank president, shrewd, but
pious. Now and then, as the political campaigns drew on, we had
speeches from eminent statesmen; and I give in the chapters on
"My Religion" reminiscences of speeches on religious subjects
made by Archbishop Hughes and Father Gavazzi. An occasional visit
from Washington Irving or Senator (afterward President) Buchanan,
as well as other men of light and leading, aroused my tendencies
toward hero-worship; but perhaps the event most vividly stamped
into my memory was the parade of Mme. Jumel. One afternoon at
that period she appeared in the streets of Saratoga in an open
coach-and-four, her horses ridden by gaily dressed postilions.
This was regarded by very many visitors as an affront not merely
to good morals, but to patriotism, for she had the fame of having
been in relations, more intimate than edifying, with Aaron Burr,
who was widely considered as a traitor to his country as well as
the murderer of Alexander Hamilton; and on the second day of her
parade, another carriage, with four horses and postilions, in all
respects like her own, followed her wherever she went and
sometimes crossed her path: but this carriage contained an
enormous negro, black and glossy, a porter at one of the hotels,
dressed in the height of fashion, who very gravely rose and
doffed his hat to the applauding multitudes on either side of the
way. Mme. Jumel and her friends were, of course, furious; and it
was said that her postilions would in future be armed with
pistols and directed to fire upon the rival equipage should it
again get in their way. But no catastrophe occurred; Mme. Jumel
took one or two more drives, and that was the end of it.

In my college days, from 1849 to 1853, going to and from New
Haven, I frequently passed through New York, and the progress of
the city northward since my earlier visits was shown by the fact
that the best hotel nearest the center of business had become
first the Irving House, just at the upper end of the City Hall
Park, and later the St. Nicholas and Metropolitan hotels, some
distance up Broadway. Staying in 1853 at a hotel looking out upon
what was to be Madison Square, I noticed that all north of that
was comparatively vacant, save here and there a few houses and
churches.

Going abroad shortly afterward, I gave three years to my
attacheship and student life in Europe, traveling across the
continent to St. Petersburg and back, as well as through Germany,
Switzerland, Austria, and Italy, all of which were then under the
old regime of disunion and despotism. To these journeys I refer
elsewhere.

Interesting to me, after my return home, were visits to Chicago
in 1858 and at various times afterward. At my first visits the
city was wretchedly unkempt. Workmen were raising its grade, and
their mode of doing this was remarkable. Under lines of brick and
stone houses, in street after street, screws were placed; and,
large forces of men working at these, the vast buildings went up
steadily. My first stay was at the Tremont House, then a famous
hostelry; and during the whole of my visit the enormous
establishment, several stories in height, was going on as usual,
though it was all open beneath and rising in the air perceptibly
every day. Years afterward, when Mr. George Pullman had become
deservedly one of the powers of Chicago, he gave me a dinner, at
which I had the pleasure of meeting a large number of the most
energetic and distinguished men of the city. Being asked by a
guest as to the time when I first visited Chicago, I stated the
facts above given, when my interlocutor remarked, "Yes, and if
you had gone down into the cellar beneath the Tremont House you
would have found our host working at one of the jack-screws." I
had already an admiration for Mr. Pullman; for he had told me of
his creation of the Pullman cars, and had shown me through the
beautiful artisan town which bears his name; but by this remark
my respect for him was greatly augmented.

My first visit to the upper Mississippi left an indelible
impression on my mind. No description of that vast volume of
water slowly moving before my eyes ever seemed at all adequate
until, years afterward, I read Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer," and his
account of the scene when his hero awakes on a raft floating down
the great river struck a responsive chord in my heart. It was the
first description that ever answered at all to the picture in my
mind. Very interesting to me were sundry later excursions to
Boston, generally on university or other business. At one of
these I purchased the library of President Sparks for the
university, and, staying some days, had the pleasure of meeting
many noted men--among them Mr. Josiah Quincy, whose reminiscences
were to me very interesting, his accounts of conversations with
John Adams perhaps more so than anything else. At various clubs I
met most charming people, the most engrossing of these being
Arthur Gilman, the architect: then, and at other times, I sat up
with him late into the night,--once, indeed, the entire
night,--listening to his flow of quaint wit and humor. The range
of his powers was perhaps best shown in a repetition of what he
claimed to be the debate in the city council of Boston on his
plans for a new city hall, which were afterward adopted. The
speeches in Irish brogue, Teutonic Jargon, and down-east Yankee
dialect, with utterances interposed here and there by solemnly
priggish members, were inimitable. His pet antipathy seemed to be
the bishop of the diocese, Dr. Eastburn. Stories were told to the
effect that Gilman, early in life, had desired to take orders in
the Protestant Episcopal Church, but that the bishop refused to
ordain him, on the ground that he lacked the requisite
discretion. Hence, perhaps his zeal in preaching what he claimed
to be the bishop's sermons. Dr. Eastburn was much given to
amplification, and Gilman always insisted that he had heard him
once, when preaching on the parable of Dives and Lazarus, discuss
the prayer of Dives in torments for a drop of water, as follows:
"To this, my brethren, under the circumstances entirely natural,
but, at the same time, no less completely inadmissible request,
the aged patriarch replied."

The bishop, who enjoyed a reputation for eloquence, was wont to
draw his lungs full of air at frequent periods during his
discourses, thus keeping his voice strong, as skilful
elocutionists advise; and on one very warm summer afternoon,
according to Gilman's account, a little boy in the congregation,
son of one of the most distinguished laymen in the diocese,
becoming very uneasy and begging his mother to allow him to go
home, she had quieted him several times by assuring him that the
bishop would soon be through, when, just at one of the most
impressive passages, the bishop having drawn in his breath as
usual, the little boy screamed so as to be heard throughout the
church, "No, he won't stop, mama; no, he won't stop; don't you
see he has just blowed hisself up again?"

Gilman also told us a story of the bishop's catechizing the
children in a Boston church, when, having taken the scriptural
account of Jonah and carried the prophet into the whale's belly,
he asked very impressively, "And now, children, how do you
suppose that Jonah felt?" Whereupon little Sohier, son of the
noted lawyer, piped out, "Down in the mouth, sir." Gilman
insisted that the bishop was exceeding wroth, and complained to
the boy's father, who was unable to conceal from the bishop his
delight at his son's answer.

At one visit or another, mainly during the years of my connection
with Cornell University, I met at Boston, pleasantly, the men who
were then most distinguished in American literature. One of
these, who interested me especially, was Ticknor, author of the
"History of Spanish Literature." Longfellow always seemed to me a
most lovely being, whether at Nahant or at Cambridge. Lowell was
wonderfully brilliant as well as kindly, and Edward Everett Hale
delightful. It was the time of Hale's short stories in the
"Atlantic Monthly," which seem to me the best ever written.
Oliver Wendell Holmes I met so rarely that I have little memory
of his brilliant conversation. Emerson I met then and at other
times,--once, especially, in a railway train during one of his
Western lecture tours; he was then reading the first volume of
Carlyle's "Frederick the Great," and, on my asking him how he
liked it, instead of showing his usual devotion to the author, he
burst forth into a stream of protests against Carlyle's
"everlasting scolding at Dryasdust." A man who was as much
overrated then as he is underrated now was Whipple, the essayist;
he was always bright, and often suggestive; but too reliant upon
a style which is now out of date,--frequently summoning
"alliteration's artful aid," and resorting to other devices,
fashionable then, but now discarded. Perhaps the best of all his
sentences was the one on the three great statesmen of that
period, to the effect that Webster was INductive, Calhoun
DEductive, and Clay SEductive; which was not only well stated but
true. Very vividly comes back to me a supper-party given early in
1875 at the house of James T. Fields, in celebration of Bayard
Taylor's birthday. Besides Mr. and Mrs. Fields and Taylor were
present Richard H. Dana, eminent in law and letters; Cranch, then
known both as a painter and poet; Mr. Osgood; and myself. Taylor
recited, as I had heard him do at other times, from the
productions of the Georgia poet, Chivers, and especially from the
"Eonx of Ruby." Chivers, according to Taylor's showing, had
become infatuated with Poe, and adorned his verses with every
sort of beautiful word which he could coin, the result being as
nonsensical a medley as was ever known. Earlier in the evening,
Taylor, Fields, and myself had each of us been giving a lecture,
and this led Taylor to speak of a recent experience of his while
holding forth in one of the smaller towns of Massachusetts. The
chairman of the lecture committee, being seated beside him on the
platform, and wishing to entertain him with edifying conversation
while the audience was coming in remarked that they had had
rather a trying experience during the lecture of the week before.
On Taylor's asking what it was, the chairman answered: "The
lecturer was seized by a virago on the stage." He meant vertigo.
Dana told good stories of old Dr. Osgood of Medford, whose hatred
of Democracy was shown not only in his well-known reading of
Governor Gerry's proclamation, but in his bitter sermon at the
election of Thomas Jefferson. At this some one gave a story
regarding our contemporary Dr. Osgood, the eminent Unitarian
clergyman, who, toward the end of his life, had gone into the
Protestant Episcopal Church. I had known him as a man of much
ability and power, but with a rather extraordinary way of
asserting himself and patronizing people. He had recently died,
and a legend had arisen that, on his arrival in the New
Jerusalem, being presented to St. Paul, he said: "Sir, I have
derived both profit and pleasure from your writings, and have
commended them to my congregation."

Our host, Fields, was especially delightful. He gave
reminiscences of his stay with Tennyson on the Isle of
Wight--among others, of taking a walk with him one dark evening
when, suddenly, the great poet fell on his knees, and seeming to
burrow in the grass called out gutturally and gruffly: "Man, get
down on your marrow-bones; here are violets." Fields also gave
reminiscences of Charles Sumner, showing the great senator's
utter lack of any sense of humor, and among them a story of his
summoning his office-boy to his presence on the eve of the Fourth
of July and addressing him on this wise: "Patrick, to-morrow is
the natal day of our Republic; it is a day for public rejoicing,
a time of patriotic festivity. You need not come to the office;
go out and rejoice with our fellow-citizens that your lot is cast
in so happy a country. Here are fifty cents; I advise you to pass
the day at the cemetery of Mount Auburn."

Very interesting to me were sundry excursions in the Southern
States, the first as far back as 1864. After attending the
Baltimore Convention which renominated Mr. Lincoln, and paying my
respects to him at Washington, as stated in my political
reminiscences, I went somewhat later to Richmond. Libby Prison
had a sad interest for me, as for many at that time, and on all
sides was seen the havoc of war; but perhaps the most curious
feature of my stay was a visit to the house which had served as
the White House of the Confederacy--the dwelling of Jefferson
Davis, for, just as I entered the door I met one of the arch
antislavery men of New England, Dr. Leonard Bacon of New Haven.
Both of us were happy at the outcome of the war, but it was with
a very solemn sort of joy that we thus met in such a place. I
seemed to hear, as so often in the South of that day, and,
indeed, in the North also, that fearful prophecy of Thomas
Jefferson--when speaking of slavery in the Southern
States--beginning with the words, "I tremble when I remember that
God is just." Halting at Gettysburg on my return northward, I
found marks of the terrible contest of the previous year still
vivid. For miles, in all directions, on the roads and through the
fields, were fragments of shell, of cannon, of harness, of
clothing, and equipments of every sort. The trees, especially
those near the great centers of the struggle, where the cemetery
now is, were gashed and torn in trunk and branches, and here and
there were to be seen fragments of human bodies which, having
been too hastily buried, had been washed out by the rains.

About ten years later,--February, 1875,--being much worn with
labor and care at the university, I made a short stay in the more
Southern States, my first stop being at Washington, where I
passed an interesting evening at the Executive Mansion with
President Grant, who was as simple and cordial in manner as ever.
The next day I left Washington for Richmond and the far South,
and on the morning following was aroused at one of the
way-stations by hearing negroes singing in a neighboring car.
They were happy at the prospect of breakfast, but a curious
preliminary was that each came out upon the platform, and, taking
a currycomb which was hung up for the purpose, curried himself,
much as an ostler administers that treatment to a horse--every
negro grasping in his turn the large wooden handle and pulling
the iron teeth through his plentiful wool.

Stopping next at Columbia in South Carolina, I saw flagrant
examples of carpet-bag rule; but of those in the State-house I
have already spoken. Here was a focus of Southern feeling; and at
the State University, which was charmingly situated, and
altogether a most fitting home for scholars and thinkers, I was
taken into the library where formerly stood the bust of Francis
Lieber, once a professor in the institution. Never had the South
a wiser or better friend. In after years I knew, loved, and
respected him. No man with a deeper knowledge of free
institutions, or with greater love for them, has ever lived in
our country; but when the news came to his old university, where
he had been so greatly admired, that he was true to the Union,
his marble bust was torn from its place, dishonored, and
destroyed. There could be no better illustration of Bishop
Butler's idea of "a possible insanity of States."

On Sunday, having been taken by one of the professors in the
university to a Protestant Episcopal church for colored people,
of which he was rector, I was surprised at the light color and
real beauty of many of the women present: nowhere, save in
Jamaica, had I seen people of mixed races so attractive. In
Charleston there were on all sides ruins, due not only to the
Civil War, but to the more recent fire and earthquake. It all
seemed as if the vengeance of Heaven had been wrought upon the
city. My sympathies were deeply enlisted; I felt no anger over
the past, no exultation. I was taken to a home for Confederate
orphans and to another for widows, and in both were pointed out
to me members of families, now hopelessly destitute, who before
the war lived in luxury. In no city, at home or abroad, have I
ever seen a line of stately mansions which seemed more fitting
abodes for wealth and culture than those upon the esplanade at
Charleston; in the days gone by a noble hospitality had centered
there, but all was now silent and distressed.

On the 4th of March we arrived in Florida and found it
fascinating. Never before had I been farther south upon the
mainland of the United States than Charleston, and never had I
seen anything of this region, save when the frigate bearing the
Santo Domingo Commission touched at Key West. Among the most
characteristic things at Jacksonville was a large church
belonging to the negro Baptists, who were evidently the leading
sect. The church was large, but unfinished, and a main feature of
every service was passing the hat for contributions. The services
were singular indeed. There was one old negro pastor who, though
he could read little if at all, had schooled himself to look into
the Bible while reciting parts of chapters, and to keep his eyes
upon the pages of his hymnal while repeating the hymns; and a
very weighty function was the reading of notices of every sort of
social gathering, especial prominence being given to meetings of
fire-engine companies. The number of Northern visitors was very
large, and it was evident that the negro managers of the
congregation felt the importance of keeping on good terms with
all of them without regard to party; for, on one occasion, as the
pastor was giving these notices, slowly deciphering them, with
the aid of a younger minister, and reading them mechanically, he
began as follows: "Dere will be a meetin' of de Republikins of
dis ward"--and instantly a number of the brethren started to
their feet, and put up their hands with a long "Hu-u-u-sh!" The
preacher was greatly embarrassed and passed on immediately to
"There will be a meeting of No. 2 Fire Company," etc., etc. Most
hearty of all was the singing, in which the whole congregation
joined loudly and with voices clear and silvery. After the
services were over there came regularly what was called the
"sperritual part." Some one of the more gifted singers--of whom,
perhaps, the most satisfactory was a young colored man in a black
velvet coat and a brilliant red tie--came forward, stood before
the pulpit, and began a long solo--as a rule, with scores of
verses. One was on the creation, another on the flood, each verse
paraphrasing the scriptural account; and the refrain, in which
the whole congregation joined, was as follows:

"Ole Pharaoh he got law-s-t--
  Got law-s-t, got law-s-t--
  Ole Pharaoh he got drownded
  In the Re-e-e-e-d Sea."

But soon came a song which amazed me. It was totally different in
character from any of the others, and was called "The Seven
Glories of Mary." One of the verses ran as follows:

"An' de berry next glory dat Mary she had,
  It was de glory of sebben--
  It was dat her Son Jesus he tolled de bells of hebben;"

and then, as at the end of each verse, came from the whole
congregation the refrain:

"Oh, trials an' tribulashuns!
  I'm gwine to quit dis world."

Next day I sent for the singer and asked him where he had learned
his songs. His answer was, "Boss, I made 'em up myself." To this
I answered, "Quite likely, some of them; but not 'The Seven
Glories of Mary.' " He thought a moment, and then said, "Yes,
boss, you 're right; dat song I brought down from ole Virginny."
It was as I had thought. The song was an old Christmas carol,
evidently brought from England in Colonial times; and the
negroes, having substituted here and there a word or a phrase
which struck them as finer than the original had preserved it.

Strange, indeed, were the devotions of this great congregation.
Occasionally some old plantation negro, gray-headed and worn with
labor, would rise and lead in the prayers with a real
inspiration, pouring out his whole heart, with all its hopes and
sorrows. Never have I heard more pathetic supplications. More
than once I have seen tears streaming from the eyes of the
Northern visitors, and then, almost in a moment, the same faces
wreathed in smiles at some farce in giving out the notices or in
taking up the collections.

A charming episode in this Florida stay was an excursion up the
St. John's River, through beautiful semi-tropical vegetation. But
one thing was exceedingly vexatious. On the deck of the steamer
were various tourists who enjoyed themselves by shooting the
beautiful birds and interesting saurians of the region--mere
wanton killing, with never any stop to pick up the bodies of
these creatures. It reminded me of the old wastefulness in the
North,--the exhaustive fishing of the rivers and streams,
especially the trout-streams; the killing of deer by hundreds;
and the wanton extermination of the buffalo. Wonderful to me were
the great springs of the region--springs so large that the little
steamer could make its way to them and upon them, so that from
the deck we could look far, far down into the depths as through
clear crystal. Most interesting of the people I met were
Professor and Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, who were passing the
winter in their house at Mandarin near by, and invited us to
visit them. Theirs was a happy-go-lucky sort of life, in a simple
cottage surrounded by great orange orchards, beyond which was a
fringe of palmettos. On the morning after our arrival, Mrs. Stowe
came in and said, "Well, we shall have dinner." To which I said,
"Of course we shall." "No," said she, "not 'of course,' for when
I awoke this morning there was nothing for dinner in the house,
and no prospect of anything in the village; but, taking my walk,
I met a negro with a magnificent wild turkey which he had just
shot, and that we will have." Just before dinner, our hostess and
I walked out into the orange orchard and there picked from the
trees a large market-basket full of the most beautiful oranges
ever seen,--large, sweet, and juicy; and these, embedded deftly
by her in a great mass of rich green leaves, glorified the table
during the discussion of the turkey, and became our dessert.
Never was there a more sumptuous dinner, and never better talk.
Mrs. Stowe was at her best, and the Doctor abounded in quaint
citations from French memoirs, of which he was an indefatigable
reader.

On the way North I stopped again at Charleston, visiting Drayton
Hall, a fine old mansion dating from 1740, but never completed,
surrounded by beautiful gardens filled with great azaleas in full
bloom, the most gorgeous I have ever seen in any part of the
world; but a cloud seemed to rise over it all when we were told
that, except in winter, remaining on the island was for white
people certain death. In all this journey through the South I
added much to my library regarding Secession and the Civil War;
accumulating newspapers, tracts, and books which became the
nucleus of the large Civil War collection at Cornell. Then, too,
there were talks with people on the train and in the hotels,
sometimes profitable and sometimes amusing. As to the feeling
between the whites and the negroes, a former master said to me,
"My old niggers will do anything I wish except cast their ballots
for me; they will give me anything they have in this world except
their votes; they would starve themselves for me, but they won't
vote for me." Among myriads of stories I heard one which seemed
to argue more philosophic power in the negro than many suppose
him to possess. A young planter at one of the Southern
watering-places appeared every day terribly bitten by mosquitos,
so that, finally, some of the guests said to his negro
body-servant, "Bob, why don't you take pains to protect your
master with mosquito curtains?" To which the negro answered, "No
use in it, sah; de fact is, sah, dat in de night-time Mars Tom is
too drunk to care for de skeeters, and in de daytime de skeeters
is too drunk to care for Mars Tom." There was also a revelation
of negro religious feeling in a story told me regarding "Thad"
Stevens. Mr. Stevens was in his day, on many accounts, the most
powerful member of the House of Representatives--at times a very
stern mentor to Mr. Lincoln, and to President Johnson a terror. I
remember him as rough and of acrid humor, but with a sort of
rugged power. The story was that one day, while at dinner, he
heard at the sideboard the crash of a platter, and immediately,
in a fury, called out, with a bitter oath, "Well, you idiot
--------, what have you broken now?" To which the negro woman
answered, "Bress de good Lord, it ain't de third commandmunt."

There were various other journeys on American soil, and among
them a very delightful summer stay, in 1884, at Nantucket; but of
all the impressions upon me at that period perhaps the strongest
was made by a piece of crass absurdity not unusual in a certain
stratum of American society. Making an excursion with my friend
President Gilman from Nantucket to the United States Fisheries
Station at Woods Hole, we stopped overnight at Martha's Vineyard,
a beautiful little island which has now become a sort of saints'
rest where, during the summer, a certain class of pious New
Englanders of the less intellectual type crowd themselves into
little cottages and enjoy a permanent camp-meeting. Never,
except, perhaps, among the dervishes of Cairo, have I seen any
religion more repulsive. On the evening of our arrival, Gilman
and I went into the large skating-rink where a German band was
blowing its best, and a large concourse of young men and women
from the various pious families of the place were disporting
themselves. Dancing was not allowed them, and so, with their arms
around each other's waists, they were executing various gyrations
on roller-skates to the sound of this music. Presently, as I sat
rather listlessly looking on, I was struck by a peculiar change
in the tune. Gilman, too, seemed in a way paralyzed by it; and,
turning to him, I said, "Tell me what that music is." Then he
came out of his daze and said, "Great heavens! it is 'Nearer, my
God, to Thee'--played as a waltz!" So it was. The whole thing, to
any proper religious, moral, or esthetic sense, was ghastly.
These pious young men and women, who, on no account, were allowed
to dance, were going through something far more indecent than any
dancing I had ever seen, and to music which was a travesty of one
of the most sacred of Christian compositions. I have long
regarded camp-meetings as among the worst influences to which our
rural youth are subjected--Joe Miller jokes in the pulpit,
hysterics in the pews, with an atmosphere often blasphemous and
sometimes erotic. A devoted country clergyman doing his simple
duty--trying to lift his congregation to better views of life,
partaking their joys and alleviating their sorrows, often a
martyr to meddlesome deacons or to pompous trustees, and his wife
a prey to the whimsical wives of opinionated pew-owners--such a
man I deeply revere; but the longer I live the more I am
convinced that the professional revivalist and the sensation
preacher are necessarily and normally foes both to religion and
to civilization.

CHAPTER LII

ENGLAND REVISITED--1885

In 1885, having resigned the presidency at Cornell, after twenty
years of service, I went to Europe; my main purpose being to
leave my successor untrammeled as to any changes which he might
see fit to make. He was an old friend and student of mine whom,
when the trustees had asked me to nominate a man to follow me I
had named as the best man I knew for the work to be done; but,
warm as were the relations between us, I made up my mind that it
was best to leave him an entirely free hand for at least a year.

Crossing the ocean, I had the close companionship of Thomas
Hughes ("Tom Brown"), and he was at his best. Among the stories
he told was one of Browning. The poet one morning, hearing a
noise in the street before his house, went to his window and saw
a great crowd gazing at some Chinamen in gorgeous costumes who
were just leaving their carriages to mount his steps. Presently
they were announced as the Chinese minister at the Court of St.
James and his suite. A solemn presentation having taken place,
Browning said to the interpreter, "May I ask to what I am
indebted for the honor of his Excellency's visit?" The
interpreter replied, "His Excellency is a poet in his own
country." Thereupon the two poets shook hands heartily. Browning
then said, "May I ask to what branch of poetry his Excellency
devotes himself?" to which the interpreter answered, "His
Excellency devotes himself to poetical enigmas." At this
Browning, recognizing fully the comic element in the situation,
extended his hand most cordially, saying, "His Excellency is
thrice welcome, he is a brother, indeed."

The month of October was passed in the southwest of England, and
there dwell in my mind recollections of Chatsworth, Haddon Hall,
and Bristol; but, above all, of a stay with the historian Freeman
at Wells. The whole life of that charming cathedral town and its
neighborhood was delightful. Freeman's kindness opened all doors
to us. The bishop, Lord Arthur Hervey, showed us kindly
hospitality at his grand old castle, which we had entered by a
drawbridge over the moat. Of especial interest to me was a
portrait of one of his predecessors--dear old Bishop Ken, whose
morning and evening hymns are among the most beautiful ties
between England and the United States. In the evening, dining
with the magistrates and lawyers, I heard good stories, among
them some characterizing various eminent members of the
profession, and of these I especially remember one at the expense
of the late Lord Chancellors Westbury and Cranworth. Lord
Cranworth, after the amalgamation of law and equity, was for some
time in the habit of going to sit with the new judges in order to
familiarize himself with the reformed practice, whereupon some
one asked Lord Westbury, "Why does 'Cranny' go to sit with the
judges?" to which Westbury answered, "Doubtless from a childish
fear of being alone in the dark."

Next day I was invited to sit with the squires in the Court of
Quarter Sessions, and was greatly interested in their mode of
administering justice. There was a firmness, but at the same time
a straightforward common sense about it all which greatly pleased
me. A visit to Wells Cathedral with Freeman was in its way ideal;
for never in all my studies of mediaeval buildings have I had so
good a guide. But perhaps the most curious experience of our stay
was an attendance upon a political meeting at Glastonbury, in the
Gladstonian interest. The first speech was made by the candidate,
Sir Hugh Davey; and in his anxiety to propitiate his hearers he
began by addressing them as men whose ancestors had for centuries
shown their devotion to free principles, and had especially given
proof of this by hanging the last Abbot of Glastonbury at the old
tower above the town. But, shortly afterward, when Freeman began
his speech, it was evident that his love of historical truth and
his devotion to church principles would not permit him to pass
this part of Davey's harangue unnoticed. Referring then
respectfully to his candidate for Parliament, Freeman went on to
say in substance that his distinguished friend was in error; that
the last Abbot of Glastonbury was not a traitor, but a martyr--a
martyr to liberty, and a victim of that arch-enemy of liberty,
Henry VIII. Any one who had heard Freeman in America as a
lecturer would have been amazed at his ability as a political
speaker. As a lecturer, trying to be eloquent while reading a
manuscript, he was generally ineffective and sometimes
comical,--worse even than the general run of lecturers in the
German universities, and that is saying much; but as a public
speaker he was excellent--so much so that, congratulating him
afterward, and bearing in mind the fact that he had been formerly
defeated for Parliament, I assured him that if he would come to
America and make speeches like that, we would most certainly put
him in Congress and keep him there.

Toward the end of October we went on to Exeter, and there, at
Heavitree Church, heard Bishop Bickersteth preach admirably,
meeting him afterward at our luncheon with the vicar, and taking
supper with him at the episcopal palace. He was perhaps best
known in America as the author of the poem, "Yesterday, To-day,
and Forever"; and of this he gave me a copy, remarking that every
year he received from the American publisher a check for fifty
pounds, though there was no right requiring any payment
whatever. In his study he showed me a copy of "The Book Annexed,"
which presented the enrichments and emendations which a number of
devout scholars and thinkers were endeavoring to make in the
Prayer-book of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States, and he spoke with enthusiasm of these additions, which,
alas! have never yet been adopted.

Next came a visit to Torquay, where Kent's Cavern, with its
prehistoric relics, interested me vastly. Looking at them, there
could be no particle of doubt regarding the enormous antiquity of
the human race. There were to be seen the evidences of man's
existence scattered among the remains of animals long ago
extinct--animals which must have lived before geological changes
which took place ages on ages ago. Mixed with remains of fire and
human implements and human bones were to be seen not only bones
of the hairy mammoth and cave-bear, woolly rhinoceros and
reindeer, which could have been deposited there only in a time of
arctic cold, but bones of the hyena, hippopotamus, saber-toothed
tiger, and the like, which could have been deposited only when
the climate was torrid. The conjunction of these remains clearly
showed that man had lived in England early enough and long enough
to pass through times of arctic cold, and times of torrid heat;
times when great glaciers stretched far down into England and,
indeed, into the Continent, and times when England had a land
connection with the European continent, and the European
continent with Africa, allowing tropical animals to migrate
freely from Africa to the middle regions of England.

The change wrought by such discoveries as these, not only in
England, but in Belgium, France, and elsewhere, as regards our
knowledge of the antiquity of the human race and the character of
the creation process, is one of the great things of our
epoch.[11]

[11] I have discussed this more fully in my "History of the
Warfare of Science with Theology," Vol. I, chap. vi.

Thence we visited various cathedral towns, being shown delightful
hospitality everywhere. There remains vividly in my memory a
visit to Worcester, where the dean, Lord Alwyn Compton, now
Bishop of Ely, went over the cathedral with us, and showed us
much kindness afterward at the deanery--a mediaeval structure,
from the great window of which we looked over the Severn and the
famous Cromwellian battle-field.

Salisbury we found beautiful as of old; then to Brighton and to
"The Bungalow" of Halliwell-Phillips the Shaksperian scholar, and
never have I seen a more quaint habitation. On the height above
the town Phillips had brought together a number of portable
wooden houses, and connected them with corridors and passages
until all together formed a sort of labyrinth; the only clue
being in the names of the corridors, all being chosen from
Shakspere, and each being enriched with Shaksperian quotations
appropriate and pithy. At his table during our stay we met
various interesting guests, one of whom suggested the idea
regarding the secret of Carlyle's cynicism and pessimism to which
reference is made in my "Warfare of Science." Next came visits to
various country houses, all delightful, and then a stay at
Oxford, to which I was reinitiated by James Bryce; and for two
weeks it was a round of interesting visits, breakfasts,
luncheons, and dinners with the men best worth knowing at the
various colleges. Interesting was a visit to All Souls College,
which, having been founded as a place where sundry "clerks"
should pray for the souls of those killed at the battle of Crecy,
had, as Sir William Anson, its present head, showed me, begun at
last doing good work after four hundred years of uselessness. In
the chapel was shown me the restored reredos, which was of great
size, extending from floor to ceiling, taking the place of the
chancel window usual in churches, and made up of niches filled
with statues of saints. As the heads of all the earlier statues
had been knocked off during the fanatical period, there had been
substituted, during the recent restoration, new statues of saints
bearing the heads of noted scholars and others connected with the
college, among which Max Muller once pointed out to me his own,
and a very good likeness it was. Interesting to me were Bryce's
rooms at Oriel, for they were those in which John Henry Newman
had lived: at that hearth was warmed into life the Oxford
Movement. At one of the Oriel dinners, Bryce spoke of the changes
at Oxford within his memory as enormous, saying that perhaps the
greatest of these was the preference given to laymen over
clergymen as heads of colleges. An example of this was the
president of Magdalen. I had met him not many years before in
Switzerland, as a young man, and now he had become the head of
this great college, one of the foremost in the university. This
impressed me all the more because my memory suggested a
comparison between him and the president at my first visit,
thirty years before: Warren, the present president, being an
active-minded layman hardly over thirty, and his predecessor,
Routh, a doctor of divinity, who was then in his hundredth year.
It was curious to see that, while this change had been made to
lay control, various relics of clerical dominance were still in
evidence, and, among these, the surplice worn by Bryce, a member
of Parliament, when he read the lessons from the lectern in Oriel
chapel. At another dinner I was struck by a remark of his, that
our problems in America seemed to him simple and easy compared
with those of England; but as I revise these recollections,
twenty years later, and think of the questions presented by our
acquisitions in the West Indies and in the Philippine and
Hawaiian islands, as well as the negro problem in the South and
Bryanism in the North, to say nothing of the development of the
Monroe Doctrine and the growth of socialistic theories, the query
comes into my mind as to what he would think to-day.

November 9, 1885.

Dining at All Souls with Professor Dicey, I met Professor
Gardiner, the historian, whom I greatly liked; his lecture on
"Ideas in English History," which I had heard in the afternoon,
was suggestive, thorough, and interesting: he is evidently one of
the historians whose work will last. In the hall I noted Lord
Salisbury's portrait in the place of honor.

Tuesday, November 10.

Breakfasting at Oriel with Bryce, I met Broderick, warden of
Merton, and there was an interesting political discussion. Bryce
thought Chamberlain had alarmed the well-to-do classes, but
trusted to Gladstone to bring matters around right, and, apropos
of some recent occurrences, remarked upon the amazing depth of
spite revealed in the blackballing at clubs. Took lunch at
Balliol, where the discussion upon general and American history
was interesting. Dined with Bryce at Oriel, and, the discussion
falling upon English and American politics, sundry remarks of
Fowler, president of Corpus Christi College, were pungent. He
evidently thinks bitterly of political corruption in America, and
I find this feeling everywhere here; politely concealed, of
course, but none the less painful. I could only say that the
contents of the caldron should not be judged from the scum thrown
to the surface. In the evening to Professor Freeman's and met Mr.
Hunt, known as a writer and an examiner in history. He complained
bitterly of the cramming system, as so many do; thought that
Jowett had done great harm by promoting it, and that the main
work now done is for position in the honor list,--cram by tutors
being everything and lectures nothing.

Wednesday, November 11.

Took luncheon with Fowler, president of Corpus Christi, a most
delightful and open-minded man. I have enjoyed no one here more,
few so much. We discussed the teaching of ethics, he lamenting
the coming in of Hegelianism, which seems mainly used by sophists
in upholding outworn dogmas. Afterward we took a long stroll
together, discussing as we walked his admirable little book on
"Progress in Morals"; I suggesting some additions from my own
experience in America. In the afternoon came Professor Freeman's
lecture on Constantine. It was a worthy presentation of a great
subject, but there were fewer than ten members of the university
present, and only two of these remained until the close. In the
evening I dined at Balliol, and, the conversation falling upon
the eminent master of the college, Jowett, and his friendship
with Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford, and Freeman, a budding cynic
recalled the verses:

"I go first; my name is Jowett;
  I am the Master of Balliol College;
  Whatever's worth knowing, be sure that I know it;
  Whatever I don't know is not knowledge."[12]

[12] This is given differently in Tuckwell's reminiscences.

Whereupon some one cited a line from an Oxford satire: "Stubbs
butters Freeman, and Freeman butters Stubbs"; at which I could
only say that Jowett, Stubbs, and Freeman had seemed to me, in my
intercourse with them, anything but dogmatic, pragmatic, or
unctuous.

November 13.

In the morning breakfasted with Bryce and a dozen or more
graduates and undergraduates in the common room at Oriel, and was
delighted with the relations between instructors and instructed
then shown. Nothing could be better. The discussion turning upon
Froude, who had evidently fascinated many of the younger men by
his style, Bryce was particularly severe against him for his
carelessness as to truth. This reminded me of a remark made to me
by Moncure Conway, I think, that Froude had begun with the career
of a novelist, for which he had decided gifts; that Carlyle had
then made him think this sort of work unworthy, urging him to
write history; and that Froude had carried into historical
writing the characteristics of a romance-writer. In the afternoon
to a beautiful concert in the great hall of Christ Church. A
curious sort of accommodation in quasi-boxes was provided by
pushing the dining-tables to the sides of the room and placing
the audience in chairs upon them and in front of them; it seemed
to me more serviceable than cleanly. In the evening dined at
Lincoln College with the rector, Dr. Merry, who was very
agreeable and entertaining, giving interesting accounts of his
predecessor, Mark Pattison, and of Wilberforce when Bishop of
Oxford. One of the guests, a fellow of New College, told me that
some fifty years ago an American, being entertained there showed
the college dons how to make mint-julep, or something of the
sort, and then sent them a large silver cup with the condition
that it should be filled with this American drink every year on
the anniversary of the donor's visit, and that this is regularly
done. This pious donor must have been, I think, "Nat" Willis.

Sunday, November 15.

Lunched with Johnson, fellow of Merton, and met my old friend
Mlle. Blaze du Bury. Her comments, from the point of view of a
brilliant young Frenchwoman, on all she saw about her at Oxford
were pungent and suggestive. In the evening heard the Archbishop
of York Thompson, preach at St. Mary's. He urged the students to
consecrate themselves by their example to the maintenance of a
better standard of morality; but, despite his strength and force,
the sermon seemed heavy and perfunctory.

November 16.

To Windsor with a party of friends, and as we had a special
permit to see a large number of rooms and curious objects not
usually shown, the visit was very interesting. Sadly suggestive
was Gordon's Bible, every page having its margins covered with
annotations in his own hand: it was brought from Khartoum after
his murder, presented by his sister to the Queen, and is now
preserved in an exquisitely wrought silver casket.

Tuesday, November 18.

Visited Somerville Hall for women, which shows a vast advance
over Oxford as I formerly knew it. To think that its creation
honors the memory of a woman who attained her high scientific
knowledge in spite of every discouragement, and who, when she had
attained it, was denounced outrageously from the pulpit of York
Minster for it! Dined at Merton College with the warden, Hon.
George Broderick, in the hall, which has been most beautifully
restored by Sir Gilbert Scott. When will the founders of our
American colleges and universities understand the vast
educational value of surroundings like these, and especially of a
"hall" in which students meet every day, beneath storied windows
and the busts and portraits of the most eminent men in the
history of science, literature, and public service?

In answer to the question whether in American universities there
was anything like the association between instructors and
students in England, I spoke of the evolution of our fraternity
houses as likely to bring about something of the sort. The
fraternal relation between teachers and taught is certainly the
best thing in the English universities, and covers a multitude of
sins. If I were a great millionaire I would establish in our
greater universities a score or so of self-governing colleges,
each with comfortable lodging-rooms and studies and with its own
library and dining-hall. In the common room, after dinner, I sat
next Professor Wallace, whose book on Kant I had read. He thinks
the system of ethics really predominant in England is modified
Kantianism.

November 19.

To Mortimer, near Reading, on a visit to Sir Paul Hunter, who
once visited me at Cornell. Extracts from my diary of this visit
are as follows:

November 20.

To Bearwood, the seat of John Walter, M.P., proprietor of the
"Times," and for the first time in my life saw a fox hunt, with
the meet, the huntsmen in red coats, and all the rest of it.

November 21.

Visited the old Abbey Church at Reading with Sir Paul, and in the
evening met various interesting people at dinner, among them Sir
John Mowbray, M.P. for Oxford and Mr. Walter.

Sunday, November 22.

After morning service in the beautiful parish church which, with
its schools, was the gift of Mr. Benyon, several of us took a
walk to Silchester, with its ruins of an old Roman bath, on the
Duke of Wellington's estate. In the evening Mr. Walter, who
usually appears so reticent and quiet, opened himself to me quite
freely, speaking very earnestly regarding the unfortunate turn
which the question between Catholics and Protestants has taken in
England under pressure from the Vatican, especially as regards
marriages, and illustrating his view by some most suggestive
newspaper cuttings. He also gave me what he claimed was the true
story of Earl Russell's conduct in letting out the Confederate
cruisers against us during the Civil War, attributing it to the
fact that an underling charged with preventing it went suddenly
mad, so that the matter did not receive early attention. But this
did not modify my opinion of Earl Russell. Thank Heaven, he lived
until he saw Great Britain made to pay heavily for his obstinacy.
Pity that he did not live to see the present restoration of good
feeling between the two countries; esto perrpetua (1905).

Monday, November 23.

In the afternoon drove to "Bramshill," the magnificent seat of
Sir William Cope; after all, there has never been any domestic
architecture so noble as the Elizabethan and Jacobean. In the
evening to a Tory meeting, Sir John Mowbray presiding; his
opening speech astounded me. Presenting the claims of his party,
he said that the Tories were not only the authors of extended
suffrage under Lord Beaconsfield, but that they ought also to
have the credit of free trade in grain, since Sir Robert Peel had
supported the bill for the repeal of the corn laws. Remembering
the treatment which Sir Robert Peel received from Disraeli and
the Tory party for this very act, it seemed to me that Sir John's
speech was the coolest thing I had ever heard in my life. It was
taken in good part, however. In America I am quite sure that such
a speech would have been considered an insult to the audience.

November 24.

To Cambridge, where I met a number of old friends, including Dr.
Waldstein, director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, and Sedley Taylor,
fellow of Trinity; and in the evening dined at King's College
with the former and a number of interesting men, including
Westcott, the eminent New Testament scholar (since Bishop of
Durham).

November 26.

Dined at Trinity College with Sedley Taylor and others, and
thence to the Politico-Economic Association to hear a discussion
upon cooperation in production; those taking the principal part
in the meeting being sundry leading men among the professors and
fellows devoted to political economy. During the day I called on
Robertson Smith, the eminent biblical critic, who, having been
thrown out of the Free Church of Scotland for revealing sundry
truths in biblical criticism a dozen years too soon, has been
received into a far better place at Cambridge.

November 27.

Had a delightful hour during the morning in King's College chapel
with Bradshaw, the librarian of the university--a most
accomplished man. He has a passion for church architecture, and
his discussions of the wonderful stained windows of the chapel
were very interesting. The evening service at King's College was
most beautiful: nothing could be more perfect than the antiphonal
rendering of the Psalms by the two choirs and the great organ.
More and more I am impressed by the EDUCATIONAL value of such
things.

November 28.

During the greater part of the day in the library of Trinity
College with Sedley Taylor. Years before, I had explored its
treasures with Aldis Wright, but there were new things to
fascinate me. Dining at King's College with Waldstein, met
Professor Seeley, author of the "Life of Stein," a book which,
ever since its appearance, has been an object of my admiration.

November 29.

In the morning, at King's College chapel, I was greatly struck by
the acoustic properties of this immense building; for, having
seated myself near the door at the west end, I distinctly heard
every word of the prayer for the church militant as it was
recited before the altar at the other end. Afterward, at Oscar
Browning's rooms, looked over a multitude of interesting
documents, including British official reports from New York
during our War of the Revolution; and in the evening, at
Waldstein's rooms, met Sir Henry Maine and discussed with him his
book on "Popular Government." He interested me greatly, and I
pointed out to him some things which, in my opinion, he might
well dwell more strongly upon in future editions, and among these
the popularity of the veto power in the United States, as shown
in its extension by recent legislation of various States to items
of supply bills.

At noon to luncheon at Christ's College with Professor Robertson
Smith, the Scotch heretic. This was the Cambridge home of Milton
and Darwin, interesting memorials of whom were shown me. Among
the guests was Dr. Creighton, professor of ecclesiastical
history. The early part of Creighton's book on the "History of
the Papacy During the Reformation Period" had especially
interested me, and I now enjoyed greatly his knowledge of Italian
matters. He discussed Tomasini's book on Machiavelli, and sundry
new Italian books on the relations of the Popes and Fra Paolo
Sarpi.

November 30.

Took tea at St. Mary's Hall with Sir Henry Maine, and continued
our discussion on his "Popular Government," which, while opposed
to democracy, pays a great tribute to the Constitution of the
United States. Dined with Professor Creighton; met various
interesting people, and discussed with him and Mrs. Creighton
sundry points in English history, especially the career of
Archbishop Laud; my opinion of Macaulay's injustice being
confirmed thereby.

December 11.

Went in the morning with Sedley Taylor and Professor Stuart,
M.P., an old friend of former visits, and inspected the
mechanical laboratory and workshops. There were about seventy
university men, more or less, engaged in these, and it was
interesting to see English Cambridge adopting the same line which
we have already taken at Cornell against so much opposition, and
surprising to find the Cambridge equipment far inferior to that
of Cornell. Afterward visited the polling booths for an election
which was going on, and noted the extraordinary precautions
against any interference with the secrecy of the ballot. Also to
the Cavendish physical laboratory, which, like the mechanical
laboratory, was far inferior in equipment to ours at Cornell. In
the evening to the Greek play,--the "Eumenides" of
aeschylus,--which was wonderfully well done. The Athena, Miss
Case of Girton College, was superb; the Apollo imposing; the
Orestes a good actor; and the music very effective. I found
myself seated next Andrew Lang, so well known for his literary
activity in various fields; and on speaking to him of the evident
delights of life at Cambridge and Oxford, I found that he had
outlived his enthusiasm on that subject.

December 2.

In the morning took a charming walk through St. Peter's, Queen's,
and other colleges, enjoying their quiet interior courts, their
halls and cloisters, the bridges across the Cam, and the walks
beyond. Then to a lecture by Professor Seeley on "Forces of
Government in History." It was admirably clear, though, in parts,
perhaps too subtle. As to England he summed all up by saying that
its present system was simply revolution at any moment. Walking
home with him afterward, I asked why, if his statement were
correct, it did not realize the old ideal in France--namely, that
of "La revolution en permanence." At luncheon with Waldstein at
King's College we found Lord Lytton, recently governor-general of
India, known to literature as "Owen Meredith," with Lady Lytton;
also Sir William Anson, provost of All Souls; as well as the
Athena of last evening, Miss Case; the Orestes, the Apollo, Sir
Henry Maine, and others. I was amused at the difference between
Lord Lytton's way of greeting me and his treatment of Sir William
Anson. When I was introduced, he at once took me by the hand, and
began talking very cordially and openly; but when his eminent
countryman was introduced, each eyed the other as if in
suspicion, did not shake hands, bowed very coldly, and said
nothing beyond muttering some one of the usual formulas. It was a
curious example of the shyness of Englishmen in meeting each
other, and of their want of shyness in meeting men from other
countries. At table Lord Lytton spoke regarding the annexation of
Burmah, likely to be accomplished by the dethronement of the
king, Theebaw; said that it ought to have been accomplished long
ago, and that the delay of action in the premises was due to
English timidity. Both he and Lady Lytton were very agreeable. He
gave an interesting account of a native drama performed before
him in India at the command of one of the great princes, though
speaking of it as "deadly dull." Speaking of difficulties in
learning idioms, he told the story of a German professor who,
priding himself on his thorough knowledge of English idioms,
said, "We must, as you English say, take ze cow by ze corns." At
this some one rejoined with the story of the learned baboo in
India who spoke of something as "magnificent, soul-inspiring, and
tip-top." As another example of baboo English was mentioned the
inscription upon one of the show-cases in an exhibition in India:
"All the goods in this case are for sale, but they cannot be
removed until after the day of judgment."

In the evening met the Historical Club at Oscar Browning's rooms,
and heard an admirable paper by Professor Seeley on "Bourbon
Family Compacts." He said that the fact of their existence was
not fully established until Ranke mentioned them, and that he,
Seeley, then examined the English Foreign Office records and
found them. He spoke of them as refuting the arguments of
Macaulay and others as to the folly of supposing that different
branches of the same family on different thrones are likely to
coalesce. Oscar Browning then read a paper on the flight of Louis
XVI to Varennes. It was elaborate, and based on close study and
personal observation. Browning had even taken measurements of the
distance over which King Louis passed on that fatal night, with
the result that he proved Carlyle's account to be entirely
inaccurate, and his indictment against Louis XVI based upon it to
be absurd. So far from the King having lumbered along slowly
through the night in Mme. Korf's coach because he had not the
force of character to make his driver go rapidly, Browning found
that the journey was made in remarkably quick time.

December 3.

Breakfasting with Sedley Taylor, I met Professor Stuart, M.P.,
who thinks a great liberal, peaceful revolution in the English
constitution will be accomplished within the next fifty years.
Thence walked with Taylor to Newnham College, where we were very
kindly received by Miss Gladstone, daughter of the prime
minister, and shown all about the place. We were also cordially
received by Miss Clough, and made the acquaintance of two
American girls, one from New Jersey and the other from
California. Much progress had been made since my former visit
under the guidance of Professor and Mrs. Fawcett. Thence to Jesus
College chapel and saw William Morris's stained glass, which is
the most beautiful modern work of the kind known to me.

December 4.

Visited St. John's, St. Peter's, and other colleges; in the
afternoon saw the eight-oared boats come down the river in fine
style; and in the evening went to the annual "audit dinner" at
Trinity College, the number of visitors in the magnificent hall
being very large. I found myself between the vice-master,
Trotter, and Professor Humphrey, the distinguished surgeon. The
latter thought Vienna had shot ahead of Berlin in surgery, though
he considered Billroth too venturesome, and praised recent
American works on surgery, but thought England was still keeping
the lead. At the close of the dinner came a curious custom. Two
servants approached the vice-master at the head of the first
table, laid down upon it a narrow roll of linen, and then the
guests rolled this along by pushing it from either side until,
when it had reached the other end, a strip of smooth linen was
left along the middle of the whole table. Then a great silver
dish, with ladles on either side, and containing some sort of
fragrant fluid, was set in front of the vice-master, upon the
narrow strip of linen which had formed the roll, and the same
thing was repeated at each of the other tables. The vice-master
having then filled a large glass at his side from the dish, and
I, at his suggestion, having done the same, the great dish was
pushed down the table to guest after guest, each following our
example. Waiting to see what was to follow, I presently observed
a gentleman near me dipping his napkin into his glass and
vigorously scrubbing his face and neck with it, evidently to cool
himself off after dinner; this was repeated with more or less
thoroughness by others present; and then came a musical grace
after meat--the non nobis, Domine --wonderfully given by the
choir. In the combination room, afterward, I met most agreeably
Mr. Trevelyan, M.P., a nephew of Macaulay, who has written an
admirable biography of his uncle.

December 6.

Dined at Trinity College as the guest of Aldis Wright, and met a
number of interesting men, among them Mahaffy, the eminent
professor of Greek at Trinity College, Dublin. Both he and Wright
told excellent stories. Among those of the latter was one of a
Scotchwoman who, on being informed of the change made by the
revisers in the Lord's Prayer,--namely, "and deliver us from the
evil one,"--said, "I doot he'll be sair uplifted." Mahaffy gave
droll accounts of Whately, Archbishop of Dublin. One of these had
as its hero a country clergyman who came to ask Whately for a
living which had just become vacant. The archbishop, thinking to
have a little fun with his guest, said, "Of course, first of all,
I must know what your church politics are: are you an
attitudinarian, a latitudinarian, or a platitudinarian?" To which
the parson replied, "Thank God, your Grace, I am not an Arian at
all at all, if that's what ye mane." The point of this lay in the
fact that among the charges constantly made by the High-church
party against Whately was that of secret Unitarianism. But the
reply so amused Whately that he bestowed the living on the old
parson at once. Mahaffy also said that when Archbishop Trench,
who was a man exceedingly mindful of the proprieties of life,
arrived in Dublin he assured Mahaffy that he intended to follow
in all things the example of his eminent predecessor, whereupon
Mahaffy answered, "Should your Grace do so, you will in summer
frequently sit in your shirt sleeves on the chains in front of
your palace, swinging to and fro, and smoking a long pipe."

Some one capped this with a story that, on a visitor once telling
Whately how a friend of his in a remote part of Ireland had such
confidence in the people about him that he never locked his
doors, the archbishop quietly replied, "Some fine morning, when
your friend wakes, he will find that he is the only spoon left in
the house."

December 7.

For several days visiting attractive places in London. Of most
interest to me were talks with Lecky, the historian. He
especially lamented Goldwin Smith's expatriation, and referred to
his admirable style, though regretting his lack of continuity in
historical work. Though an Irishman devoted most heartily to
Ireland, Lecky thought Gladstone's home rule policy suicidal. On
my telling him of Oscar Browning's study of Louis XVI's flight to
Varennes, he stood up for Carlyle's general accuracy. He liked
Sir Henry Maine's book, but was surprised at so much praise for
"The Federalist," since he thought Story's "Commentaries" much
better. He thought Draper's "History of the Intellectual
Development of Europe" showed too much fondness for very large
generalizations. He liked Hildreth's "History of the United
States" better than Bancroft's, and I argued against this view.
He praised Buckle's style, and when I asked him regarding his own
"Eighteenth Century," he said it was to be longer than he had
expected. As to his "European Morals," he said that it must be
recast before it could be continued. Returning to the subject of
home rule in Ireland, he said it was sure to lead to religious
persecution and confiscation. He speaks in a very low, gentle
voice, is tall and awkward, but has a very kind face, and pleases
me greatly. During my stay in London I did some work in the
British Museum on subjects which interested me, and at a visit to
Maskelyne and Cooke's great temple of jugglery in Piccadilly saw
a display which set me thinking. Few miracle-mongers have ever
performed any feats so wonderful as those there accomplished; the
men and women who take such pleasure in attributing spiritual and
supernatural origin to the cheap jugglery of "mediums" should see
this performance.

CHAPTER LIII

FRANCE, ITALY, AND SWITZERLAND--1886-1887

New Year's day of 1886 found my wife and myself again in Paris;
and, during our stay of nearly a fortnight there, we met various
interesting persons--among them Mr. McLane, the American minister
at that post, whom I had last seen, over thirty years before,
when we crossed the ocean together--he then going as minister to
China, and I as attache to St. Petersburg. His discussions both
of American and French politics were interesting; but a far more
suggestive talker was Mme. Blaze de Bury. Though a Frenchwoman,
she was said to be a daughter of Lord Brougham; his portrait hung
above her chair in the salon, and she certainly showed a
versatility worthy of the famous philosopher and statesman, of
whom it was said, when he was appointed chancellor, that if he
only knew a little law he would know a little of everything. She
apparently knew not only everything, but everybody, and abounded
in revelations and prophecies.

On the way from Paris to the Riviera we encountered at Lyons very
cold weather, and, giving my wraps to my wife, I hurried out into
the station in the evening, bought of a news-vender a mass of old
newspapers, and, having swathed myself in these, went through the
night comfortably, although our coupe was exposed to a most
piercing wind.

Arriving at Cannes, we found James Bryce of the English
Parliament, Baron George von Bunsen of the German Parliament, and
Lord Acton (since professor of history at the University of
Cambridge), all interesting men, but the latter peculiarly so:
the nearest approach to omniscience I have ever seen, with the
possible exception of Theodore Parker. Another person who
especially attracted me was Sir Charles Murray, formerly British
minister at Lisbon and Dresden. His first wife was an
American,--Miss Wadsworth of Geneseo,--and he had traveled much
in America--once through the Adirondacks with Governor Seymour of
New York, of whom he spoke most kindly. Discussing the Eastern
Question, he said that any nation, except Russia, might have
Constantinople; he gave reminiscences of old King John of Saxony,
who was very scholarly, but the last man in the world to be a
king. Most charming of all were his reminiscences of Talleyrand.
The best things during my stay were my walks and talks with Lord
Acton, who was full of information at first hand regarding
Gladstone and other leaders both in England and on the Continent.
Although a Roman Catholic, he spoke highly of Fraser, late
Anglican Bishop of Manchester. As to Americans, he had known
Charles Sumner in America, but had not formed a high opinion of
him, evidently thinking that the senator orated too much; he had
with him a large collection of books, selected, doubtless, from
his two large libraries, in London and in the Tyrol, and with
this he astonished one as does a juggler who, from a single small
bottle, pours out any kind of wine demanded. For example, one
day, Bunsen, Bryce, and myself being with him, the first-named
said something regarding a curious philological tract by Bernays,
put forth when Bunsen was a student at Gottingen, but now
entirely out of print. At this Lord Acton went to one of his
shelves, took down this rare tract, and handed it to us. So, too,
during one of our walks, the talk happening to fall upon one of
my heroes, Fra Paolo Sarpi, I asked how it was that, while in the
old church on the Lagoon at Venice I had at three different
visits sought Sarpi's grave in vain, I had at the last visit
found it just where I had looked for it before. At this he gave
me a most interesting account of the opposition of Pope Gregory
XVI--who, before his elevation to the papacy, had been abbot of
the monastery --to Sarpi's burial within its sacred precincts,
and of the compromise under which his burial was allowed. This
compromise was that his bones, which had so long been kept in the
ducal library to protect them from clerical hatred, might be
buried in the church on the island, provided Sarpi were, during
the ceremonies, honored simply as the discoverer of the
circulation of the blood,--which he probably was not,--and not
honored as the greatest statesman of Venice--which he certainly
was. This, as I then supposed, closed the subject; but in the
afternoon a servant came over, bringing me from Lord Acton a most
interesting collection of original manuscripts relating to
Sarpi,--a large part of them being the correspondence between the
papal authorities and the Venetians who had wished to give
Sarpi's bones decent burial, over half a century before. I now
found that the reason why I had not discovered the grave was that
the monks, as long as they were allowed control, had persisted in
breaking up the tablet bearing the inscription; that they could
not disturb the bones for the reason that Sarpi's admirers had
inclosed them in a large and strong iron box, anchoring it so
that it was very difficult to remove; but that since the death of
the late patriarch and the abolition of monkish power the
inscription over the grave had been allowed to remain
undisturbed.

During another of our morning walks the discussion having fallen
on witchcraft persecution, Lord Acton called in the afternoon and
brought me an interesting addition to my collection of curious
books on that subject--a volume by Christian Thomasius.

On another of our excursions I asked him regarding the
Congregation of the Index at Rome, and its procedure. To this he
answered that individuals or commissions are appointed to examine
special works and reports thereupon to the Congregation, which
then allows or condemns them, as may seem best; and I marveled
much when, in the afternoon of that day, he sent me specimens of
such original reports on various books.

He agreed with me that the papal condemnation of Victor Hugo's
"Les Miserables" was a mistake as a matter of policy--as great a
mistake, indeed, as hundreds and thousands of other condemnations
had been. Of Pope Leo XIII he spoke with respect, giving me an
account of the very liberal concessions made by him at the
Vatican library, so that it is now freely opened to Protestants,
whereas it was formerly kept closely shut. At a later period this
was confirmed to me by Dr. Philip Schaff, the eminent Protestant
church historian, who told me that formerly at the Vatican
library he was only allowed, as a special favor, to look at the
famous Codex, with an attendant watching him every moment;
whereas after Pope Leo XIII came into control he was permitted to
study the Codex and take notes from it at his ease.

In another of his walks Lord Acton discussed Gladstone, whom he
greatly admired, but pointed out some curious peculiarities in
the great statesman and churchman, --among these, that he
worshiped the memory of Archbishop Laud and detested the memory
of William III.

Very interesting were sundry little dinners on Saturday evenings
at the Cercle Nautique, at which I found not only Lord Acton, but
Sir Henry Keating, a retired English judge; General Palfrey, who
had distinguished himself in our Civil War; and a few other good
talkers. At one of these dinners Sir Henry started the question:
"Who was the greatest man that ever lived?" Lord Acton gave very
interesting arguments in favor of Napoleon, while I did my best
in favor of Caesar; my argument being that the system which
Caesar founded maintained the Roman Empire during nearly fifteen
hundred years after his death; that its fundamental ideas and
features have remained effective in various great nations until
the present day; and that they have in our own century shown
themselves more vigorous than ever. Lord Acton insisted that we
have no means of knowing the processes of Caesar's mind; that we
know the mode of thinking of only two ancients, Socrates and
Cicero; that possibly, if we knew more of Shakspere's mental
processes, the preeminence might be claimed for him, but that we
know nothing of them save from his writings; while we know
Napoleon's thoroughly from the vast collections of memoirs, state
papers, orders, conversations, etc., as well as in his amazing
dealings with the problems of his time; that the scope and power
of Napoleon's mental processes seem almost preternatural and of
this he gave various remarkable proofs. He argued that
considerations of moral character and aims, as elements in
greatness, must be left out of such a discussion; that the
intellectual processes and their results were all that we could
really estimate in comparing men. Sir Henry Keating observed that
his father, an officer in the British army, was vastly impressed
by the sight of Napoleon at St. Helena; whereupon Lord Acton
remarked that Thiers acknowledged to Guizot, who told Lord Acton,
that Napoleon was "un scelerat." That seemed to me a rather
strong word to be used by a man who had done so much to revive
the Napoleonic legend Lord Acton also quoted a well-authenticated
story--vouched for by two persons whom he named, one of them
being the Count de Flahaut, who was present and heard the
remark--that when the imperial guards broke at Waterloo, Napoleon
said, "It has always been so since Crecy."

Toward the end of February we went on to Florence, and there met,
frequently, Villari, the historian; Mantegazzi; and other leading
Florentines. Mention being made of the Jesuit Father Curci, who
had rebelled against what he considered the fatal influence of
Jesuitism on the papacy, Villari thought him too scholastic to
have any real influence. Of Settembrini he spoke highly as a
noble character and valuable critic, though with no permanent
place in Italian literature. He excused the tardiness of Italians
in putting up statues to Giordano Bruno and Fra Paolo Sarpi,
since they had so many other recent statues to put up. As I look
back upon this conversation, it is a pleasure to remember that I
have lived to see both these statues--that of Bruno, on the place
in Rome where he was burned alive, and that of Sarpi, on the
place in Venice where the assassins sent by Pope Paul V left him
for dead.

Early in March we arrived in Naples, going piously through the
old sights we had seen several times before. Revisiting Amalfi, I
saw the archbishop pontificating at the cathedral: he was the
finest-looking prelate I ever saw, reminding me amazingly of my
old professor, Silliman of Yale. Then, during the stay of some
weeks in Sorrento, I took as an Italian teacher a charming old
padre, who read his mass every morning in one of the churches and
devoted the rest of the day to literature. He was at heart
liberal, and it was from him that I received a copy of the famous
"Politico-Philosophical Catechism," adopted by Archbishop Apuzzo
of Sorrento, than which, probably, nothing more defiant of moral
principles was ever written. The archbishop had been made by
"King Bomba" tutor to his son, and no wonder that the young man
was finally kicked ignominiously off his throne, and his country
annexed to the Italian kingdom. This catechism, written years
before by the elder Leopardi, but adopted and promoted by the
archbishop, was devoted to maintaining the righteousness of all
that system of extreme despotism, oath-breaking, defiance of
national sentiment, and violations of ordinary decency, which had
made the kingdom of Naples a byword during so many generations.
Therein patriotism was proved to be a delusion; popular education
an absurdity; observance of the monarch's sworn word opposition
to divine law; a constitution a mere plaything in the monarch's
hands; the Bible is steadily quoted in behalf of "the right
divine of kings to govern wrong"; and all this with a mixture of
cynicism and unctuousness which makes this catechism one of the
most remarkable political works of modern times.

At this time I made an interesting acquaintance with Francis
Galton, the eminent English authority on heredity. Discussing
dreams, he told me a story of a lady who said that she knew that
dreams came true; for she dreamed once that the number 3 drew a
prize in the lottery, and again that the number 8 drew it; and
so, she said, "I multiplied them together, 3 X 8 = 27, bought a
ticket bearing the latter number, and won the prize."

Very interesting were my meetings with Marion Crawford, the
author. Nothing could be more delightful than his villa and
surroundings, and his accounts of Italian life were fascinating,
as one would expect after reading his novels. Another new
acquaintance was Mr. Mayall, an English microscopist; he gave me
accounts of his visit to the Louvre with Herbert Spencer, who,
after looking steadily at the "Immaculate Conception" of Murillo,
said "I cannot like a painted figure that has no visible means of
support."

On my return northward I visited the most famous of Christian
monasteries,--the cradle of the Benedictine order,--Monte
Cassino, and there met a young English novice, who introduced me
to various Benedictine fathers, especially sundry Germans who
were decorating with Byzantine figures the lower story, near the
altar of St. Benedict. At dinner the young man agreed with me
that it might be well to have a Benedictine college at Oxford,
but thought that any college established there must be controlled
by the Jesuit order. He professed respect for the Jesuits, but
evidently with some mistrust of their methods. On my asking if he
thought he could bear the severe rule of his order, especially
that of rising about four o'clock in the morning and retiring
early in the evening, he answered that formerly he feared that he
could not, but that now he believed he could. On my tentative
suggestion that he come and establish a Benedictine convent on
Cayuga Lake, he told me that he should probably be sent to
Scotland.

The renowned old monastery seems to be mindful of its best
traditions, for it has established within its walls an admirably
equipped printing-house, in which I was able to secure for
Cornell University copies of various books by learned
Benedictines--some of them, by the beauty of their workmanship,
well worthy to be placed beside the illuminated manuscripts which
formerly came from the Scriptoria.

At Rome I was taken about by Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist
in control of the excavations, who showed me beautiful things
newly discovered and now kept in temporary rooms near the
Capitol. To my surprise, he told me that there is absolutely no
authentic bust of Cicero dating from his time; but this was
afterward denied by Story, the American sculptor, who pointed out
to me a cast of one in his studio. Story spoke gloomily of the
condition of Italy, saying that formerly there were no taxes, but
that now the taxes are crushing. He added that the greatest
mistake made by the present Pope was that, during the cholera at
Naples, he remained in Rome, while King Humbert went immediately
to that city, visited the hospitals, cheered the
cholera-stricken, comforted them, and supplied their wants.

On Easter Sunday I saw Cardinal Howard celebrate high mass in St.
Peter's. He had been an English guardsman, was magnificently
dressed, and was the very ideal of a proud prelate. The audience
in the immediate neighborhood of the altar were none too
reverential, and in other parts of the church were walking about
and talking as if in a market; all of this irreverence reminding
me of the high mass which I had seen celebrated by Pope Pius IX
at the same altar on Easter day of 1856.

Calling on the former prime minister, Minghetti, who had been an
associate of Cavour, I found him very interesting, as was also
Sambuy, senator of the kingdom and syndic of Turin, who was with
him. Minghetti said that the Italian school system was not yet
satisfactory, though young men are doing well in advanced
scientific, mathematical, historical, and economic studies. On my
speaking of a statistical map in my possession which revealed the
enormous percentage of persons who can neither read nor write in
those parts of Italy most directly under the influence of the
church, he said that matters were slowly improving under the new
regime. He spoke with respect of Leo XIII, saying that he was not
so bitter in his utterances against Italy as Pius IX had been.
Discussing Bismarck and Cavour, he said that both were eminently
practical, but that Cavour adhered to certain principles, such as
free trade, freedom of the church, and the like, whereas Bismarck
was wont to take up any principle which would serve his temporary
purpose. Minghetti hoped much, eventually, from Cavour's idea of
toleration, and spoke with praise of the checks put by the
American Constitution on unbridled democracy, whereupon I quoted
to him the remark of Governor Seymour in New York, the most
eminent of recent Democratic candidates for the Presidency, to
the effect that the merit of our Constitution is not that it
promotes democracy, but that it checks it. Minghetti spoke of Sir
Henry Maine's book on "Free Government" with much praise; in
spite of its anti-democratic tendencies, it had evidently raised
his opinion of the American Constitution. He also praised
American scientific progress. Sambuy said that the present growth
of the city of Rome is especially detested by the clergy, since
it is making the city too large for them to control; that their
bitterness is not to be wondered at, since they clearly see that,
no matter what may happen,--even if the kingdom of Italy were to
be destroyed to-morrow,--it would be absolutely impossible for
the old regime of Pope, cardinals, and priests ever again to
govern the city; that with this increase of the population, and
its long exercise of political power, the resumption of temporal
power by the Pope is an utter impossibility; that even if
revolution or anarchy came, the people would never again take
refuge under the papacy.

Very interesting were sundry gatherings at the rooms of Story,
the sculptor. Meeting there the Brazilian minister at the papal
court, I was amazed by his statements regarding the rules
restricting intercourse between diplomatists accredited to the
Vatican and those accredited to the Quirinal; he said that
although the minister from his country to the Quirinal was one of
his best friends, he was not allowed to accept an invitation from
him.

The American minister, Judge Stallo of Cincinnati, seemed to me
an admirable man, in spite of the stories circulated by various
hostile cliques. At the house of the British ambassador Stallo
spoke in a very interesting way of Cardinal Hohenlohe as far
above his fellows and capable of making a great pope. The
political difficulties in Italy, he said, were very great, and,
greatest of all, in Naples and Sicily. Dining with him, I met my
old friend Hoffmann, rector of the University of Berlin, and a
number of eminent Italian men of science, senators, and others.

At the house of Dr. Nevin, rector of the American Episcopal
church, I met the Dutch minister, who corroborated my opinion
that the British parliamentary system generally works badly in
the Continental countries, since it causes constantly recurring
changes in ministers, and prevents any proper continuity of state
action, and he naturally alluded to the condition of things in
France as an example.

Among other interesting people, I met the abbot of St. Paul
Outside the Walls, to whom Lord Acton, in response to my question
as to whether there was such a thing as a "learned Benedictine"
extant, had given me a letter of introduction. The good abbot
turned out to be an Irishman with some of the more interesting
peculiarities of his race; but his conversation was more vivid
than illuminating. He had reviewed various books for the
Congregation of the Index, one of these, a book which I had just
bought, being on "The Architecture of St. John Lateran." He held
a position in the Propaganda, and I was greatly struck by his
minute knowledge of affairs in the United States. The question
being then undecided as to whether a new bishopric for central
New York was to be established at Utica or Syracuse, he discussed
both places with much minute knowledge of their claims and of the
people residing in them. I put in the best word I could for
Syracuse, feeling that if a bishopric was to be established, that
was the proper place for it; and afterward I had the satisfaction
of learning that the bishop had been placed there. The abbot had
known Secretary Seward and liked him.

Leaving Rome in May, we made visits of deep interest to Assisi,
Perugia, Orvieto, and other historic towns and, arriving at
Florence again, saw something of society in that city. Count de
Gubernatis, the eminent scholar, who had just returned from
India, was eloquent in praise of the Taj Mahal, which, of all
buildings in the world, is the one I most desire to see. He
thinks that the stories regarding juggling in India have been
marvelously developed by transmission from East to West; that
growing the mango, of which so much is said, is a very poor
trick, as is also the crushing, killing, and restoration to life
of a boy under a basket; that these marvels are not at all what
the stories report them to be; that it is simply another case of
the rapid growth of legends by transmission. He said that hatred
for England remains deep in India, and that caste spirit is very
little altered, his own servant, even when very thirsty, not
daring to drink from a bottle which his master had touched.

Dining with Count Ressi at his noble villa on the slope toward
Fiesole, I noted various delicious Italian wines upon the table,
but the champagne was what is known as "Pleasant Valley Catawba,"
from Lake Keuka in western New York, which the count, during his
journey to Niagara, had found so good that he had shipped a
quantity of it to Florence.

A very interesting man I found in the Marquis Alfieri Sostegno,
vice-president of the Senate,--a man noted for his high character
and his writings. He is the founder of the new "School for
Political and Social Studies," and gave me much information
regarding it. His family is of mediaeval origin, but he is a
liberal of the Cavour sort. Preferring constitutional monarchy,
but thinking democracy inevitable, he asks, "Shall it be a
democracy like that of France, excluding all really leading men
from power, or a democracy influenced directly by its best men?"
In his school he has attempted to train young men in the
practical knowledge needed in public affairs, and hopes thus to
prepare them for the inevitable future. This college has
encountered much opposition from the local universities, but is
making its way.

Another man of the grand old Italian sort was Peruzzi, syndic of
Florence, a former associate of Cavour, and one of the leading
men of Italy. Calling for me with two other senators, he took me
to his country villa, which has been in the possession of the
family for over four hundred years, and there I dined with a very
distinguished company. Everything was large and patriarchal, but
simple. The discussions, both at table and afterward, as we sat
upon the terrace with its wonderful outlook over one of the
richest parts of Tuscany, mainly related to Italian matters. All
seemed hopeful of a reasonable solution of the clerical
difficulty. Most interesting was his wife, Donna Emilia, well
known for her brilliant powers of discussion and her beautiful
qualities as a hostess both at the Peruzzi palace in Florence and
in this villa, where one meets men of light and leading from
every part of the world.

From Florence we went on to the Italian lakes, staying especially
at Baveno, Lugano, and Cadenabbia. Especially interesting to me
were the scenes depicted in the first part of Manzoni's "Promessi
Sposi." An eminent Italian told me at this time that Manzoni
never forgave himself for his humorous delineations of the priest
Don Abbondio, who figures in these scenes after a somewhat
undignified fashion. Interesting also was a visit to the tomb of
Rosmini, with its portrait-statue by Vela, in the monastery
looking over the most beautiful part of the Lago Maggiore. Thence
by the St. Gotthard to Zurich, where we visited my old colleague,
Colonel Roth, the Swiss minister at Berlin. Very simple and
charming was his family life at Teufen. In the library I noticed
a curious shield, and upon it several swords, each with an
inscription; and, on my asking regarding them, I was told that
they were the official swords of Colonel Roth's
great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and himself, each of whom
had been Landamman of the canton. He told me that as Landamman he
presided from time to time over a popular assembly of several
thousand people; that it was a republic such as Rousseau
advocated,--all the people coming together and voting, by "yes"
and "no" and showing of hands, on the proposals of the Landamman
and his council. Driving through the canton, I found that, while
none of the people were rich, few were very poor, and that the
Catholic was much behind the Protestant part in thrift and
prosperity.

My love for historical studies interested me greatly in a visit
to the Abbey of St. Gall. The mediaeval buildings are virtually
gone, and a mass of rococo constructions have taken their place.
Gone, too, in the main, is the famous library of the middle ages;
but the eminent historian and archivist, Henne Am Rhyn, showed me
the ancient catalogue dating from the days of Charlemagne, and
one or two of the old manuscripts referred to in it, which have
done duty for more than a thousand years. Then followed my second
visit to the Engadine, reached by two days' driving in the
mountains from Coire; and during my stay at St. Moritz I made the
acquaintance of many interesting people,--among them Admiral
Irvine of the British navy. Speaking of the then recent sinking
of the Cunarder Oregon, he expressed the opinion that a squadron
of seven-hundred-ton vessels with beaks could best defend a
harbor from ironclads; and in support of this contention he cited
an experience of his own as showing the efficiency of the beak in
naval warfare. A few years before he had anchored in the Piraeus,
his ship, an ironclad, having a beak projecting from the bow, of
course under water. Noticing a Greek brig nearing him, he made
signals to her to keep well off; but the captain of the brig,
resenting this interference, and keeping straight on, endeavored
to pass, at a distance which, no doubt, seemed to him perfectly
safe, in front of the bows of the ironclad. The admiral said that
not the slightest shock was felt on board his own vessel; but the
brig sank almost immediately. She had barely grazed the end of
the beak. At another time the admiral spoke of the advance of the
British fleet, in which he held a command, upon Constantinople in
1878. The British Government supposed that the Turks had
virtually gone over to the Russians, and the first order was to
take the Turkish fortresses at Constantinople immediately; but
this order was afterward withdrawn, and the matter at issue was
settled in the ensuing European conference.

It was a pleasure to find at this Alpine resort my old friend
Story the sculptor. He gave us a comical account of the
presentation at the Vatican of Mr. George Peabody by Mr. Winthrop
of Boston. Referring to Mr. Peabody's munificence to various
institutions for aiding the needy, and especially orphans, Mr.
Winthrop, in a pleasant vein, presented his friend to Pope Pius
IX as a gentleman who, though unmarried, had hundreds of
children; whereupon the Pope, taking him literally, held up his
hands and answered, "Fi donc! fi donc!"

Our stay at St. Moritz was ended by a severe snowstorm early in
August. That was too much. I had left America mainly to escape
snow; my traveling all this distance was certainly not for the
purpose of finding it again; and so, having hugged the stove for
a day or two, I decided to return to a milder climate. Passing by
Vevey, we visited our friends the Brunnows at their beautiful
villa on the shore of Lake Leman, where my old president at the
University of Michigan, Dr. Tappan, had died, and it was with a
melancholy satisfaction that I visited his grave in the cemetery
hard by.

Stopping at Geneva over Sunday, I observed at the Cathedral of
St. Peter, Calvin's old church, that the sermon and service
carefully steered clear of the slightest Trinitarian formula, as
did the churches in Switzerland generally. Considering that
Calvin had burned Servetus in that very city for his disbelief in
the doctrine of the Trinity, this omission would seem enough to
make that stern reformer turn in his grave. Returning to Paris, I
again met Lecky, who was making a short visit to the French
capital; and, as we were breakfasting together Mme. Blaze de Bury
being present, our conversation fell on Parisian mobs. She
insisted that the studied inaction of the papal nuncio during the
Commune caused the murder of Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, who was
hated by the extreme clerical party on account of his coolness
toward infallibility and sundry other dogmas advocated by the
Jesuits. Lecky thought Lord Acton's old article in the "North
British Review" the best statement yet made on the St.
Bartholomew massacre The discussion having veered toward the
Jewish question, which was even then rising, Lecky said that
Shakspere probably never saw a Jew--that Jews were not allowed in
England in his time, the only exceptions being Queen Elizabeth's
physician and, perhaps, a few others.

During the latter part of September I started on an architectural
tour through the east of France, and was more than ever
fascinated by the beauty of all I found at Soissons, Laon,
Chalons, Troyes, and Rheims, the cathedral at the latter place
seeming even more grand than when I last saw it. I have never
been able to decide finally which is the more noble--Amiens or
Rheims; my temporary decision being generally in favor of that
one of the two which I have seen last. But I found iniquity
triumphant: the "restorers" had been at work, and had apparently
done their worst. A great scaffolding covered the superb
rose-window of the west front, perhaps the finest of its kind in
Christendom, and, in a little book published by one of the
canons, I soon learned the reason. It appears that the architect
superintending the "restoration" had dug a deep well at one
corner of one of the massive towers for the purpose of inspecting
the foundations; that he had forgotten to fill this well; and
that, during the winter, the water from the roofs, having come
down into it and frozen, had upheaved the tower at one corner,
with the result of crumbling and cracking this immense window
adjacent.

At Troyes it was hardly better. It is a city which probably never
had sixty thousand inhabitants, and yet here are four of the most
magnificent architectural monuments in Europe. But the work
wrought upon them under the pretext of "restoration" was no less
atrocious than that upon the cathedral at Rheims, and of this I
have given an example elsewhere.[13]

[13] See Chapter XXI.

Continuing my way homeward, I stopped a few days in London. From
my diary I select an account of the sermon preached in one of the
principal churches of the city by Dr. Temple,--then bishop of
London, but later archbishop of Canterbury,--before the lord
mayor, lady mayoress, and other notable people. The sermon was a
striking exhibition of plain common sense, without one particle
of what is generally known as spirituality. The text was, "Freely
ye have received, freely give," and the argument simply was that
the congregation worshiping in that old church had received all
its privileges from contributions made centuries before, and that
it was now their duty, in their turn, to contribute money for new
congregations constantly arising in the new population of London.
Of spiritual gifts to be acknowledged nothing was said. In the
afternoon took tea with Lecky, and on my referring to Earl
Russell, he spoke of him as wonderful in getting at the center of
an argument. Of Carlyle he said that he knew him in his last days
intimately, often walking with him; but that his mind failed him
sadly; that the last thing Lecky read him was a selection from
Burns's letters; and that Carlyle, when left to himself, often
toned down his harsh judgments of men. At his funeral, in
Scotland, Lecky was present, and, judging from his account, it
was one of the most dismal things ever known. Speaking of
America, Lecky said that Carlyle was really deeply attached to
Emerson; and he added that Dean Stanley, on his return from
America, told him that the best things he found there were the
private libraries, and the worst the newspapers. Lecky thought
Americans more prone to give themselves up to a purely literary
life than are the English, and cited Prescott, Irving, and
others. He spoke of "The Club," of which he is a member. It is
that to which Sir Joshua Reynolds, Dr. Johnson, Burke, and
Goldsmith belonged; its members dine together every fortnight;
one black ball excludes. Speaking of Gladstone, he thought that
he had greatly declined as a speaker of late years, and that no
one had had such power in clouding truth and obscuring a fact.

Returning to America, I again settled in my old quarters at
Cornell University, hoping to devote myself quietly to the work I
had in hand. My old home on the campus had an especial charm for
me, and I had begun to take up the occupations to which I
purposed to devote the rest of my life, when there came upon me
the greatest of all calamities--the loss of her who had been for
thirty years my main inspiration and support in all difficulties,
cares, and trials. For the time all was lost. In all calamities
hitherto I had taken refuge in work; but now there seemed no
motive for work, and at last, for a complete change of scene, I
returned to Europe, determined to give myself to the preparation
of my "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology."

CHAPTER LIV

EGYPT, GREECE, AND TURKEY--1888-1889

While under the influence of the greatest sorrow that has ever
darkened my life, there came to me a calamity of a less painful
sort, yet one of the most trying that I have ever known. A long
course of mistaken university policy, which I had done my best to
change, and the consequences of which I had especially exerted
myself to avert, at last bore its evil fruit. On the 13th of
June, 1888, I was present at the session of the Court of Appeals
at Saratoga, and there heard the argument in the suit brought to
prevent the institution from taking nearly two millions of
dollars bequeathed by Mrs. Willard Fiske. I had looked forward to
the development of the great library for which it provided as the
culminating event in my administration, and, indeed, as the
beginning of a better era in American scholarship. Never in the
history of the United States had so splendid a bequest been made
for such a purpose. But as I heard the argument I was satisfied
that our cause was lost,--and simply from the want of effective
champions; that this great opportunity for the institution which
I loved better than my life had passed from us during my
lifetime, at least; and then it was that I determined to break
from my surroundings for a time, and to seek new scenes which
might do something to change the current of my thoughts.

At the end of June, taking with me my nephew, a bright and active
college youth, I sailed for Glasgow, and, revisiting the scenes
made beautiful to me by Walter Scott, I was at last able to think
of something beside the sorrow and disappointment which had beset
me. Memorable to me still is a sermon heard at the old Church of
St. Giles, in Edinburgh. The text was, "He wist not that his face
shone," and the argument, while broad and liberal, was deeply
religious. One thought struck me forcibly. The preacher likened
theological controversies to storms on the coast which result
only in heaps of sand, while he compared religious influences to
the dew and gentle rains which beautify the earth and fructify
it.

Healing in their influences upon me were visits to the cathedral
towns between Edinburgh and London. The atmosphere of Durham,
York, Lincoln, Ely, Peterborough, aided to lift me out of my
depression. In each I stayed long enough to attend the cathedral
service and to enjoy the architecture, the music, and my
recollections of previous visits. At Lichfield Cathedral I heard
Bach's "Easter Hymn" given beautifully,--and it was needed to
make up for the sermon of a colonial bishop who, having returned
to England after a long stay in his remote diocese, was fearfully
depressed by the liberal tendencies of English theology. His
discourse was one long diatribe against the tendency in England
toward broad-churchmanship. One passage had rather a comical
effect. He told, pathetically, the story of a servant-girl
waiting on the table of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, who,
after hearing the clergymen present dealing somewhat freely with
the doctrine of the Trinity, rushed out into the passage and
recited loudly the Nicene Creed to strengthen her faith. I, too,
felt the need of doing something to strengthen mine after this
tirade, and fortunately strolled across the meadows to the little
Church of St. Chad, and there took part in a lovely "Flower
Service," ended by a very sweet, kindly sermon to the children
from the fatherly old rector of the parish. Nothing could be
better in its way, and it took the taste of the morning sermon
out of my mouth.

Of various experiences in London, the one of most interest to me
was a visit to the House of Commons, where the Irish Home Rulers
were attempting to bait Mr. Balfour, the government leader. One
after another they arose and attacked him bitterly in all the
moods and tenses, with alleged facts, insinuations, and
denunciations. Nothing could be better than his way of taking it
all. He sat quietly, looking at his enemies with a placid smile,
and then, when they were fully done, rose, and before he had
spoken five minutes his reply had the effect of a musket-shot
upon a bubble. It was evident that these patriots were hardly
taken seriously even by their own side, and, in fact, did not
take themselves seriously. I then realized as never before the
real reasons why the oratorical and other demonstrations of Irish
leaders have accomplished so little for their country.

A Liberal political meeting in Holborn also interested me. The
main speaker was the son of the Marquis of Northampton, Earl
Compton, who was standing for Parliament. His speech was all
good, but its best point was his answer to a man in the crowd who
asked him if he was prepared to vote for the abolition of the
House of Lords. That would seem a trying question to the heir of
a marquisate; but he answered instantly and calmly: "As to the
House of Lords, better try first to mend it, and, if we cannot
mend it, end it."

He was followed by a Home Ruler, Father McFadden, whose speech,
being simply anti-British rant from end to end, must have cost
many votes; and I was not surprised when, a day or two afterward,
his bishop recalled him to Ireland.

Very pleasing to me were sundry excursions. At Rugby I was
intensely interested in the scenes of Arnold's activity. He had
exercised a great influence over my own life, and a new
inspiration came amid the scenes so familiar to him, and
especially in the chapel where he preached.

Visiting some old friends in Hampshire, I drove with them to
Selborne, stood by the grave of Gilbert White, and sat in his
charming old house in that beautiful place of pilgrimage.

Most soothing in its effect upon me was a visit to Stoke Pogis
churchyard and the grave of Thomas Gray. The "Elegy" has never
since my boyhood lost its hold upon me, and my feelings of love
for its author were deepened as I read the inscription placed by
him upon his mother's monument:

"The tender mother of many children, only one of whom had the
misfortune to survive her."

A Sunday afternoon in Kensal Green cemetery, with a visit to the
graves of Thackeray, Thomas Hood, and Leigh Hunt, roused thoughts
on many things.

Somewhat later, revisiting Mr. Halliwell-Phillips's "Bungalow" at
Brighton, I met at his table the most bitter and yet one of the
most just of all critics of Carlyle whom I have ever known. He
spoke especially of Carlyle's treatment of his main historical
authorities,--many of them admirable and excellent men,--and
dwelt on the fact that Carlyle, having used the results of the
life-work of these scholars, then enjoyed pouring contempt and
ridicule over them; he also referred to Carlyle's address to the
Scotch students, in which he told them to study the patents of
nobility for the deeds which made the nobility of England great,
but did not reveal to them the fact that the expressions in these
patents were stereotyped, and the same, during many years, for
men of the most different qualities and services.

Running up to Cambridge for a day or two, and dining with Oscar
Browning at King's College, I afterward saw at his rooms a
collection of intensely interesting papers, and, among others,
reports of British spies during the Revolutionary War in America.
Very curious, among these, was a letter from the British minister
at Berlin in those days, who detailed a burglary which he had
caused in that capital in order to obtain the papers of the
American envoy and copies of American despatches. The
correspondence also showed that Frederick the Great was much
vexed at the whole matter; that the British ministry at home
thought their envoy too enterprising; that he came near
resigning; but that the whole matter finally blew over. This was
brought back to me somewhat later at a dinner of the Royal
Historical Society, where the president, Lord Aberdare, recalled
a story bearing on this matter. It was that Frederick the Great
and the British minister at his court greatly disliked each
other, and that on their meeting one day the old King asked, "Who
is this Hyder Ali who is making you British so much trouble in
India?" to which the bold Briton answered: "Sire, he is only an
old tyrant who, after robbing his neighbors, is now falling into
his dotage" ("Sire, ce n'est qu'un vieux tyran qui, apres avoir
pille ses voisins, commence a radoter").

Having made with my nephew a rapid excursion on the Continent, up
the Rhine, and as far as Munich, I returned to see him off on his
return journey to America, and then settled down for several
weeks in London. It was in the early autumn, Parliament had
adjourned, most people of note had left town, and I was left to
myself as completely as if I had been in the depths of a forest.
Looking out over Trafalgar Square from my pleasant rooms at
Morley's Hotel, with all the hurry and bustle of a great city
going on beneath my window, I was simply a hermit, and now found
myself able to resume the work which for so many years had
occupied my leisure. At the British Museum I enjoyed the
wonderful opportunities there given for investigation; and there,
too, I found an admirable helper in certain lines of work--my
friend Professor Hudson, since of Stanford University,
California.

The only place where I was at all in touch with the outside world
was at the Athenaeum Club; but the main attraction there was the
library.

Now came a sudden change in all my plans. My health having
weakened somewhat under the influence of this rather sedentary
life in the London fog, I consulted two eminent physicians, Sir
Andrew Clarke and Sir Morell Mackenzie, and each advised and even
urged me to pass the winter in Egypt. Shortly came a letter from
my friend Professor Willard Fiske, at Florence saying that he
would be glad to go with me. This was indeed a piece of good
fortune, for he had visited Egypt again and again, and was not
only the best of guides, but the most charming of companions. My
decision was instantly taken, and, having finished one or two
chapters of my book, I left London and, by the way of the St
Gotthard, soon reached Florence. Thence to Rome, Naples, and,
after a charming drive, to Castellammare, Sorrento, Amalfi, and
Salerno, whence we went by rail to Brindisi, and thence to
Alexandria, where we arrived on the 1st of January, 1889.

Now came a new chapter in my life. This journey in the East,
especially in Egypt and Greece, marked a new epoch in my
thinking. I became more and more impressed with the continuity of
historical causes, and realized more and more how easily and
naturally have grown the myths and legends which have delayed the
unbiased observation of human events and the scientific
investigation of natural laws. On a Nile boat for many weeks,
with scholars of high character, and with an excellent library
about me, I found not only a refuge from trouble and sorrow, but
a portal to new and most fascinating studies.

Nor was it only the life of old Egypt which interested me: the
scenes in modern Eastern life also gave a needed change in my
environment. At Cairo, in the bazaar in contact with the daily
life, which seemed like a chapter out of the "Arabian Nights,"
and also in the modern part of the city, in contact with the
newer life of Egypt among English and Egyptian functionaries,
there was constant stimulus to fruitful trains of thought.

For our journey of five weeks upon the Nile we had what was
called a "special steamer," the Sethi; and for our companions,
some fourteen Americans and English--all on friendly terms. Every
day came new subjects of thought, and nearly every waking moment
came some new stimulus to observation and reflection.

Deeply impressed on my mind is the account given me by Brugsch
Bey, assistant director of the Egyptian Museum, of the amazing
find of antiquities two or three years before--perhaps the most
startling discovery ever made in archaeology. It was on this
wise. The museum authorities had for some time noted that
tourists coming down the river were bringing remarkably beautiful
specimens of ancient workmanship; and this led to a suspicion
that the Arabs about the first cataract had discovered a new
tomb. For a long time nothing definite could be found; but, at
last, vigorous measures having been taken,--measures which
Brugsch Bey did not explain, but which I could easily understand
to be the time-honored method of tying up the principal
functionaries of the region to their palm-trees and whipping them
until they confessed,--the discovery was revealed, and Brugsch
Bey, having gone up the Nile to the place indicated, was taken to
what appeared to be a well; and, having been let down into it by
ropes, found himself in a sort of artificial cavern, not
beautified and adorned like the royal tombs of that region, but
roughly hewn in the rock. It was filled with sarcophagi, and at
first sight of them he was almost paralyzed. For they bore the
names of several among the most eminent early sovereigns and
members of sovereign families of the greatest days of Egypt. The
first idea which took hold of Brugsch's mind while stunned by
this revelation was that he was dreaming; but, having soon
convinced himself that he was awake, he then thought that he must
be in some state of hallucination after death--that he had
suddenly lost his life, and that his soul was wandering amid
shadows. But this, too, he soon found unlikely. Then came over
him a sense of the reality and importance of the discovery too
oppressive to be borne. He could stay in the cavern no longer;
and, having gone to the entrance of the well and signaled to the
men above, he was drawn up, and, arriving at the surface, gasped
out a command to them all to leave him. He then sat down in the
desert to secure the calm required for further thought; and,
finally, having become more composed, returned to the work, and
the mummies of Rameses the Great and of the other royal
personages were taken from their temporary home, carried down the
river, and placed in the museum at Cairo.

Another experience was of a very different sort. I had passed a
day with the Egyptian minister of public instruction, Artin
Pasha, at the great technical school of Cairo, which, under the
charge of an eminent French engineer, is training admirably a
considerable number of Egyptians in various arts applied to
industry; and at luncheon, I had noticed on the wall a portrait
of the Khedive, Tewfik Pasha, representing him as most commanding
in manner--over six feet in height, and in a gorgeous uniform. On
the evening of that day I went to dine with the Khedive, and,
entering the reception-rooms, found a large assemblage, and was
welcomed by a kindly little man with a pleasant face, and in the
plainest of uniforms, who, as I supposed, was the prime minister,
Riaz Pasha. His greeting was cordial, and we were soon in close
conversation, I giving him especially the impressions made upon
me by the school, asking questions and making suggestions. He
entered very heartily into it all, and detained me long, I
wondering constantly where the Khedive might be. Presently, the
great doors having been flung open and dinner announced, each
gentleman hastened to the lady assigned him, and all marched out
together, my thought being, "This is the Oriental way of
entertaining strangers; we shall, no doubt, find the sovereign on
his throne at the table." But, to my amazement, the first place
at the table was taken by the unassuming little man with whom I
had been talking so freely. At first I was somewhat abashed,
though the mistake was a very natural one. The fact was that I
had been completely under the impression made upon me by the
idealized portrait of the Khedive at the technical school, and
the thought had never entered my mind that the real Khedive might
be physically far inferior to the ideal. But no harm was done;
for, after dinner, he came to me again and renewed the
conversation with especial cordiality. I also had a long talk
with the real Riaz, and found him intelligent and broad-minded.
One thing he said amused me. It was that he especially liked to
welcome Americans, because they were not seeking to exploit the
country.

In Cairo and Alexandria I enjoyed meeting the American and
English missionaries,--among them my old Yale friend Dr. Henry
Jessup, who has for so many years rendered admirable services at
Beyrout; but the most noteworthy thing was a lecture which I
heard from Dr. Grant, an eminent Presbyterian physician connected
with the mission. It was on the subject of the Egyptian
Trinities. The doctor explained them, as well as the Trimurtis of
India, by expressing his belief that when the Almighty came down
in the cool of the day to refresh himself by walking and talking
with Adam in the garden of Eden, he revealed to the man he had
made some of the great mysteries of the divine existence, and
that these had "leaked out" to men who took them into other
countries, and there taught them!

I also found at Cairo another especially interesting man of a
very different sort, an Armenian, Mr. Nimr; and, on visiting him,
was amazed to find in his library a large collection of English
and French books, scientific and literary--among them the "New
York Scientific Monthly" containing my own articles, which he had
done me the honor to read. I found that he had been, at an
earlier period, a professor at the college established by the
American Protestant missionaries at Beyrout; but that he and
several others who had come to adopt the Darwinian hypothesis
were on that account turned out of their situations, and that he
had taken refuge in Cairo where he was publishing, in Arabic, a
daily newspaper a weekly literary magazine, and a monthly
scientific journal. I was much struck by one remark of his--which
was, that he was doing his best to promote the interests of
Freemasonry in the East, as the only means of bringing Christians
and Mohammedans together under the same roof for mutual help,
with the feeling that they were children of the same God. He told
me that the worst opposition he had met came from a very
excellent Protestant missionary, who had publicly insisted that
the God worshiped by the Mohammedans was not the God worshiped by
Christians. This reminded me of a sermon which one of my friends
heard in Strasburg Cathedral in which a priest, reproving his
Catholic hearers for entering into any relations with
Protestants, especially opposed the idea that they worshiped the
same God, and insisted that the God of the Catholics and the God
of the Protestants are two different beings.

Among the things which gave me a real enjoyment at this period,
and aided to revive my interest in the world about me, was the
Saracenic architecture of Cairo and its neighborhood. Nothing
could be, in its way, more beautiful. I had never before realized
how much beauty is obtainable under the limitations of
Mohammedanism; the exquisite tracery and fretwork of the
Saracenic period were a constant joy to me, and happily, as there
had been no "restorers," everything remained as it had left the
hands of the men of genius who created it.

In this older architecture a thousand things interested me; but
the greatest effect was produced by the tombs at Beni Hassan, as
showing the historical linking together of human ideas both in
art and science--the development of one period out of another. Up
to the time of my seeing them I had supposed that the Doric
architecture of Greece, and especially the Doric column, was of
Greek creation; now I saw the proof that it was evolved out of an
earlier form upon the lower Nile, which had itself, doubtless,
been developed out of forms yet earlier.

At one thing I was especially surprised. I found that, excellent
as are our missionaries in those regions, their work has not at
all been what those who send them have supposed. No Mohammedan
converts are made. Indeed, should the good missionaries at Cairo
wake up some fine morning in the spacious quarters for which they
are so largely indebted to the late Khedive Ismail, and find that
they had converted a Mohammedan, they would be filled with
consternation. They would possibly be driven from the country.
The real Mohammedan cannot be converted. There were, indeed, a
few persons, here and there, claiming to be converted Jews or
Mohammedans; but we were always warned against them, even by
Christians, as far less trustworthy than those who were true to
their original faith. Whatever good is done by the missionaries
is done through their schools, to which come many children of the
Copts, with perhaps a certain number of Mohammedans desirous of
learning English; and the greatest of American missionary
successes is doubtless Robert College at Constantinople, which
has certainly done a very noble work among the more gifted young
men of the Christian populations in the Turkish Empire.

Several times I attended service in the United Presbyterian
church at Cairo, and found it hard, unattractive, and little
likely to influence any considerable number of persons, whether
Mohammedan or Christian. It was evident that the preachers, as a
rule, were entirely out of the current of modern theological and
religious thought, and that even the best and noblest of them
represented ideas no longer held by their leading coreligionists
in the countries from which they came.

After a stay of three months in Egypt, we left Alexandria for
Athens, where I enjoyed, during a considerable stay, the
advantages of the library at the American School of Archaeology,
and the companionship of my friend Professor Waldstein, now of
Cambridge University. Very delightful also were excursions with
my old Yale companion, Walker Fearne, our minister in Greece, and
his charming family, to the Acropolis, the Theater of Dionysus,
the Bay of Salamis, Megara, and other places of interest. An
especial advantage we had in the companionship of Professor
Mahaffy of Trinity College, Dublin, whose comments on all these
places were most suggestive.

Very interesting to me was an interview with Tricoupis, the prime
minister of the kingdom. His talk on the condition of things in
Greece was that of a broad-minded statesman. Speaking of the
relations of the Greek Church to the state, he said that the
church had kept the language and the nationality of the people
alive during the Turkish occupation, but that, in spite of its
services, it had never been allowed to domineer over the country
politically; he dwelt on the importance of pushing railway
communications into Europe, and lamented the obstacles thrown in
their way by Turkey. His reminiscences of Mr. Buchanan and Mr.
Dallas, whom he had formerly known at the Court of St. James
during his stay as minister in London, were especially
interesting.

The most important "function" I saw was the solemn "Te Deum" at
the cathedral on the anniversary of Greek independence, the King,
Queen, and court being present, but I was less impressed by their
devotion than by the irreverence of a considerable part of the
audience, who, at the close of the service, walked about in the
church with their hats on their heads. As to the priests who
swarmed about us in their Byzantine costumes and long hair, I was
reminded of a sententious Moslem remark regarding them: "Much
hair, little brains."

On Good Friday I visited Mars Hill and mused for an hour over
what has come from the sermon once preached there.

Toward the end of April we left the Piraeus, and, after passing
through the aegean on a most beautiful day, arrived in
Constantinople, where I made the acquaintance of Mr. Straus, our
minister at that capital. Thus began a friendship which I have
ever since greatly prized. Mr. Straus introduced me to two of the
most interesting men I have ever met; the first of these being
Hamdi Bey, director of the Imperial Museum at Constantinople.
Meeting him at Mr. Straus's table and in his own house, I heard
him discuss sundry questions relating to modern art--better, in
some respects, than any other person I have ever known. Never
have I heard more admirably discriminating judgments upon various
modern schools of painting than those which he then gave me.

The other person to whom Mr. Straus introduced me was the British
ambassador, Sir William White, who was very hospitable, and
revealed to me much in life and literature. One thing especially
surprised me--namely, that though a Roman Catholic, he had a
great admiration for Renan's writings, of which he was a constant
reader. Here, too, I renewed my acquaintance with various members
of the diplomatic corps whom I had met elsewhere. Curious was an
evening visit to the Russian Embassy, Mrs. Straus being carried
in a sedan-chair, her husband walking beside her in evening dress
at one door, I at the other, and a kavass, with drawn sword,
marching at the head of the procession.

While the Mohammedan history revealed in Constantinople gave me
frequent subjects of thought, I was more constantly carried back
to the Byzantine period. For there was the Church of St. Sophia!
No edifice has ever impressed me more; indeed, in many respects,
none has ever impressed me so much. Bearing in mind its origin,
its history, and its architecture, it is doubtless the most
interesting church in the world. Though smaller than St. Peter's
at Rome, it is vastly more impressive. Taking into account the
view as one enters, embracing the lofty vaults retreating on all
sides, the arches springing above our heads, and, crowning all,
the dome, which opens fully upon the sight immediately upon
passing the door way, it is certainly the most overpowering of
Christian churches. Gibbon's pictures thronged upon me, and very
vividly, as I visited the ground where formerly stood the Great
Circus, and noted the remains of monuments where the "Blues" and
"Greens" convulsed the city with their bloody faction fights, and
where squabbling Christian sects prepared the way for that
Turkish dominion which has now burdened this weary earth for more
than five hundred years.

From Constantinople, by Buda-Pesth, Vienna, Munich, Ulm, and
Frankfort-on-the-Main, to Paris, stopping in each of these
cities, mainly for book-hunting. At Munich I spent considerable
time in the Royal Library, where various rare works relating to
the bearing of theology on civilization were placed at my
disposal; and at Frankfort added largely to my
library--especially monographs on Egypt and illuminated
manuscripts of the middle ages.

At Paris the Exposition of 1889 was in full blast. As to the
American exhibit, there were some things to be lamented. Our
"commission of experts" was in part remarkably well chosen; among
them being a number of the best men in their departments that
America has produced; but, on the other hand, there were some who
had evidently been foisted upon the President by politicians in
remote States--so-called "experts," yet as unfit as it is
possible to conceive any human beings to be. One of these, who
was responsible for one of the most important American
departments, was utterly helpless. Day in and day out, he sat in
a kind of daze at the American headquarters, doing
nothing--indeed, evidently incapable of doing anything. One or
two of his associates, as well as sundry Frenchmen, asked me to
aid in getting his department into some order; and this, though
greatly pressed for time, I did,--devoting to the task several
days which I could ill afford.

Very happy was I over one improvement which the United States had
made since the former exposition, at which I had myself been a
commissioner. Then all lamented and apologized for the condition
of the American Art Gallery; now there was no need either of
lamentation or apology, for there, in all their beauty, were
portraits by Sargent, and Gari Melchers's picture of "A Communion
Day in Holland"--the latter touching the deep places of the human
heart. As I was sitting before it one day, an English gentleman
came with his wife and sat beside me. Presently I heard him say:
"Of all the pictures in the entire exposition, this takes the
strongest hold upon me." Many other American pictures were also
objects of pride to us. I found our minister, Mr. Whitelaw Reid,
very hospitable, and at his house became acquainted with various
interesting Americans. At President Carnot's reception at the
palace of the Elysee I also met several personages worth knowing,
and among them, to my great satisfaction, Senator John Sherman.

During this stay in Paris I took part in two commemorations.
First came the Fourth of July, when, in obedience to the old
custom which I had known so well in my student days, the American
colony visited the cemetery of the Rue Picpus and laid wreaths
upon the tomb of Lafayette,--the American band performing a
dirge, and our marines on duty firing a farewell volley. It was
in every way a warm and hearty tribute. A week later was the
unveiling of the statue of Camille Desmoulins in the garden of
the Palais Royal,--this being the one-hundredth anniversary of
the day on which, in that garden,--and, indeed, on that spot,
before the Cafe Foy,--he had roused the mob which destroyed the
Bastille and begun the whirlwind which finally swept away so much
and so many, including himself and his beloved Lucille. Poor
Camille, orating, gesticulating, and looking for a new heaven and
a new earth, was one of the little great men so important at the
beginning of revolutions and so insignificant afterward. It was
evident that, in spite of the old legends regarding him, the
French had ceased to care for him; I was surprised at the small
number present, and at the languid interest even of these.

Among my most delightful reminiscences of this period are my
walks and talks with my old Yale and Paris student friend of
nearly forty years before, Randall Gibson, who, having been a
general in the Confederate service, was now a United States
senator from Louisiana. Revisiting our old haunts, especially the
Sorbonne, the Pantheon, St. Sulpice, and other monuments of the
Latin Quarter, we spoke much of days gone by, he giving me most
interesting reminiscences of our Civil War period as seen from
the Southern side. One or two of the things he told me are
especially fastened in my mind. The first was that as he sat with
other officers over the camp-fire night after night, discussing
the war and their hopes regarding the future, all agreed that
when the Confederacy obtained its independence there should be no
"right of secession" in it. But what interested me most was the
fact that he, a Democratic senator of the United, States,
absolutely detested Thomas Jefferson, and, above all things, for
the reason that he considered Jefferson the real source of the
extreme doctrine of State sovereignty. Gibson was a typical
Kentucky Whig who, in the Civil War, went with the South from the
force of family connections, friendships, social relations, and
the like, but who remained, in his heart of hearts, from first to
last, deeply attached to the Union.

Leaving Paris, we went together to Homburg, and there met Mr.
Henry S. Sanford, our minister at Belgium during the Civil War,
one of Secretary Seward's foremost agents on the European
continent at that period. His accounts of matters at that time,
especially of the doings of sundry emissaries of the United
States, were all of them interesting, and some of them
exceedingly amusing. At Homburg, too, I found my successor in the
legation at Berlin, Mr. Pendleton, who, though his mind remained
clear, was slowly dying of paralysis.

Thence with Gibson and Sanford down the Rhine to Mr. Sanford's
country-seat in Belgium. It was a most beautiful place, a lordly
chateau, superbly built, fitted, and furnished, ample for the
accommodation of a score of guests, and yet the rent he paid for
it was but six hundred dollars a year. It had been built by a
prince at such cost that he himself could not afford to live in
it, and was obliged to rent it for what he could get. Thence we
made our way to London and New York.

CHAPTER LV

MEXICO, CALIFORNIA, SCANDINAVIA, RUSSIA, ITALY, LONDON, AND
BERLIN--1892-1897

Arriving at New York in the autumn of 1889, I was soon settled at
my accustomed work in the university,--devoting myself to new
chapters of my book and to sundry courses of lectures. Early in
the following year I began a course before the University of
Pennsylvania; and my stay in Philadelphia was rendered very
agreeable by various new acquaintances. Interesting to me was the
Roman Catholic archbishop, Dr. Ryan. Dining in his company, I
referred admiringly to his cathedral, which I had recently
visited, but spoke of what seemed to me the defective mode of
placing the dome upon the building; whereupon he made one of the
most tolerable Latin puns I have ever heard, saying that during
the construction of both the nave and the dome his predecessors
were hampered by lack of money,--that, in fact, they were greatly
troubled by the res angustae domi. Interesting also was
attendance upon the conference at Lake Mohonk, which brought
together a large body of leading men from all parts of the
country to discuss the best methods of dealing with questions
relating to the freedmen and Indians. The president of the
conference, Mr. Hayes, formerly President of the United States, I
had known well in former days, when I served under him as
minister to Germany, and the high opinion I had then formed of
him was increased as I heard him discuss the main questions
before the conference. It was the fashion at one time among
blackguards and cynics of both parties to sneer at him, and this,
doubtless, produced some effect on the popular mind; but nothing
could be more unjust: rarely have I met a man in our own or any
other country who has impressed me more by the qualities which a
true American should most desire in a President of the United
States; he had what our country needs most in our public
men--sobriety of judgment united to the power of calm, strong
statement.

The two following years, 1890-1891, were passed mainly at
Cornell, though with excursions to various other institutions
where I had been asked to give addresses or lectures; but in
February of 1892, having been invited to lecture at Stanford
University in California, I accepted an invitation from Mr.
Andrew Carnegie to become one of the guests going in his car to
the Pacific coast by way of Mexico. Our party of eight, provided
with cook, servants, and every comfort, traveled altogether more
than twelve thousand miles--first through the Central and
Southern States of the Union, thence to the city of Mexico and
beyond, then by a series of zigzag excursions from lower
California to the northern limits of Oregon and Washington, and
finally through the Rocky Mountains and the canons of Colorado to
Salt Lake City and Denver. Thence my companions went East and I
returned alone to Stanford to give my lectures. During this long
excursion I met many men who greatly interested me, and
especially old students of mine whom I found everywhere doing
manfully the work for which Cornell had aided to fit them. Never
have I felt more fully repaid for any labor and care I have ever
given to the founding and development of the university. Arriving
in the city of Mexico, I said to myself, "Here certainly I shall
not meet any more of my old Cornellians"; but hardly was I
settled in my room when a card came up from one of them, and I
soon learned that he was doing honor to the Sibley College of the
university by superintending the erection of the largest
printing-press which had ever been brought into Mexico. The
Mexican capital interested me greatly. The cathedral, which, up
to that time, I had supposed to be in a debased rococo style, I
found to be of a simple, noble Renaissance character, and of real
dignity. Being presented to the President, Porfirio Diaz, I was
greatly impressed by his quiet strength and self-possession, and
then understood for the first time what had wrought so beneficent
a change in his country. His ministers also impressed me
favorably, though they were evidently overshadowed by so great a
personality. One detail struck me as curious: the room in which
the President received us at the palace was hung round with satin
draperies stamped with the crown and cipher of his
predecessor--the ill-fated Emperor Maximilian.

California was a great revelation to me. We arrived just at the
full outburst of spring, and seemed to have alighted upon a new
planet. Strong and good men I found there, building up every sort
of worthy enterprise, and especially their two noble
universities, one of which was almost entirely officered by
Cornell graduates. To this institution I was attached by a
special tie. At various times the founders, Governor and Mrs.
Stanford, had consulted me on problems arising in its
development; they had twice visited me at Cornell for the purpose
of more full discussion, and at the latter of the two visits had
urged me to accept its presidency. This I had felt obliged to
decline. I said to them that the best years of my life had been
devoted to building up two universities,--Michigan and
Cornell,--and that not all the treasures of the Pacific coast
would tempt me to begin with another; that this feeling was not
due to a wish to evade any duty, but to a conviction that my work
of that sort was done, and that there were others who could
continue it far better than I. It was after this conversation
that, on their asking whether there was any one suitable within
my acquaintance, I answered, "Go to the University of Indiana;
there you will find the president, an old student of mine, David
Starr Jordan, one of the leading scientific men of the country,
possessed of a most charming power of literary expression, with a
remarkable ability in organization, and blessed with good, sound
sense. Call him." They took my advice, called Dr. Jordan, and I
found him at the university. My three weeks' stay interested me
more and more. Evening after evening I walked through the
cloisters of the great quadrangle, admiring the solidity, beauty,
and admirable arrangement of the buildings, and enjoying their
lovely surroundings and the whole charm of that California
atmosphere.

The buildings, in simplicity, beauty, and fitness, far surpassed
any others which had at that time been erected for university
purposes in the United States; and I feel sure that when the
entire plan is carried out, not even Oxford or Cambridge will
have anything more beautiful. President Jordan had more than
fulfilled my prophecies, and it was an inspiration to see at
their daily work the faculty he had called together. The students
also greatly interested me. When it was first noised abroad that
Senator Stanford was to found a new university in California,
sundry Eastern men took a sneering tone and said, "What will it
find to do? The young men on the Pacific coast who are as yet fit
to receive the advantages of a university are very few; the State
University of California at Berkeley is already languishing for
want of students." The weakness of these views is seen in the
fact that, at this hour, each of these universities has nearly
three thousand undergraduates. The erection of Stanford has given
an impetus to the State University, and both are doing noble
work, not only for the Pacific coast, but for the whole country.
One of the most noteworthy things in the history of American
university education thus far is the fact that the university
buildings erected by boards of trustees in all parts of the
country have, almost without exception, proved to be mere jumbles
of mean materials in incongruous styles; but to this rule there
have been, mainly, two noble exceptions: one in the buildings of
the University of Virginia, planned and executed under the eye of
Thomas Jefferson, and the other in these buildings at Palo Alto,
planned and executed under the direction of Governor and Mrs.
Stanford. These two groups, one in Virginia and one in
California, with, perhaps, the new university buildings at
Philadelphia and Chicago, are almost the only homes of learning
in the United States which are really satisfactory from an
architectural point of view.

The "City of the Saints," which I saw on my way, had much
interest for me. I collected while there everything possible in
the way of publications bearing on Mormonism, beginning with a
copy of the original edition of the "Book of Mormon"; but nothing
that I could find in any of these publications indicated any
considerable intellectual development, as yet.

More encouraging was a rapid visit, on my way home, to the
Chicago Exposition buildings, which, though not yet fully
completed, were very beautiful; and still more pleasure came from
a visit to the new University of Chicago, which was evidently
beginning a most important work for American civilization. Its
whole plan is remarkably well conceived, and with the means that
it is rapidly accumulating, due to the public spirit of its main
benefactor and a multitude of others hardly second to him in the
importance of their gifts, it cannot fail to exercise a great
influence, especially throughout the Northwestern States. First
of all, it will do much to lift the city in which it stands out
of its crude materialism into something higher and better. It is
a pleasure to note that its buildings are worthy of it: they seem
likely to form a fourth in the series of fit homes for great
centers of advanced education in the United States,--Virginia,
Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania being the others.

Having returned to Cornell, I went on quietly with my work until
autumn, when, to my surprise, I received notice that the
President had appointed me minister to St. Petersburg; and on the
4th of November I arrived at my post in that capital. Of my
experience as minister I have spoken elsewhere, but have given no
account of two journeys which interested me at that period. The
first of these was in the Scandinavian countries. The voyage of a
day and night across the Baltic through the Aland Islands was
like a dream, the northern twilight making night more beautiful
than day, and the approach to the Swedish capital being, next to
the approaches to Constantinople and to New York, the most
beautiful I know.

Very instructive to me was a visit to Upsala--especially to the
university and cathedral. As to the former, the "Codex of
Ulfilas," in the library, which I had long desired to see,
especially interested me; and visits to the houses of the various
"nations" showed me that out of the social needs of Swedish
students in the middle ages had been developed something closely
akin to the fraternity houses which similar needs have developed
in our time at American universities. The cathedral, containing
the remains of Gustavus Vasa and Linnaeus, was fruitful in
suggestions. By a curious coincidence I was at that time
finishing my chapter entitled "From Creation to Evolution," and
had been paying special attention to the ancient and mediaeval
conceptions of the creation of the world as a work done by an
individual in human form, laboring with his hands during six
days, and taking needed rest on the seventh; and here I found, at
the side entrance of the cathedral, a delightfully naive
mediaeval representation of the whole process,--a series of
medallions representing the Almighty toiling like an artisan on
each of the six days and reposing, evidently very weary, on the
seventh.

The journey across Sweden, through the canals and lakes, was very
restful. At Christiania Mr. Gade, the American consul, who had
served our country so long and so honorably in that city, took me
under his guidance during various interesting excursions about
the fiords. At Gothenburg I took pains to obtain information
regarding their system of dealing with the sale of intoxicating
liquors, and became satisfied that it is, on the whole, the best
solution of the problem ever obtained. The whole old system of
saloons, gin-shops, and the like, with their allurements to the
drinking of adulterated alcohol, had been swept away, and in its
place the government had given to a corporation the privilege of
selling pure liquors in a restricted number of decent shops,
under carefully devised limitations. First, the liquors must be
fully tested for purity; secondly, none could be sold to persons
already under the influence of drink; thirdly, no intoxicant
could be sold without something to eat with it, the effects of
alcohol upon the system being thus mitigated. These and other
restrictions had reduced the drink evil, as I was assured, to a
minimum. But the most far-reaching provision in the whole system
was that the company which enjoyed the monopoly of this trade was
not allowed to declare a dividend greater than, I believe, six
per cent.; everything realized above this going into the public
treasury, mainly for charitable purposes. The result of this
restriction of profits was that no person employed in selling
ardent spirits was under the slightest temptation to attract
customers. Each of these sellers was a salaried official and knew
that his place depended on his adhering to the law which forbade
him to sell to any person already under the influence of liquor,
or to do anything to increase his sales; and the whole motive for
making men drunkards was thus taken away.

I was assured by both the American and British consuls, as well
as by most reputable citizens, that this system had greatly
diminished intemperance. Unfortunately, since that time, fanatics
have obtained control, and have passed an entirely "prohibitory"
law, with the result, as I understand, that the community is now
discovering that prohibition does not prohibit, and that the
worst kinds of liquors are again sold by men whose main motive is
to sell as much as possible.

The most attractive feature in my visit to Norway was Throndheim.
With my passion for Gothic architecture, the beautiful little
cathedral, which the authorities were restoring Judiciously, was
a delight, and it was all the more interesting as containing one
of those curiosities of human civilization which have now become
rare. In one corner of the edifice is a "holy well," the
pilgrimages to which in the middle ages were, no doubt, a main
source of the wealth of the establishment. The attendant shows,
in the stonework close to the well, the end of a tube coming from
the upper part of the cathedral; and through this tube pious
monks in the middle ages no doubt spoke oracular words calculated
to enhance the authority of the saint presiding over the place.
It was the same sort of thing which one sees in the Temple of
Isis at Pompeii, and the zeal which created it was no doubt the
same that to-day originates the sacred fire which always comes
down from heaven on Easter day into the Greek church at
Jerusalem, the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius in the
cathedral at Naples, and sundry camp-meeting utterances and
actions in the United States.

Sweden and Norway struck me as possessing, in some respects, the
most satisfactory civilization of modern times. With a
monarchical figurehead, they are really a republic. Here is no
overbearing plutocracy, no squalid poverty, an excellent system
of education, liberal and practical, from the local school to the
university, a population, to all appearance, healthy, thrifty,
and comfortable.

And yet here, as in other parts of the world, the resources of
human folly are illimitable. A large party in Norway urges
secession from Sweden, and both remain divided from Denmark,
though the three are, to all intents and purposes, of the same
race, religion, language, and early historical traditions. And
close beside them looms up, more and more portentous, the Russian
colossus, which, having trampled Swedish Finland under its feet,
is looking across the Scandinavian peninsula toward the good
harbors of Norway, just opposite Great Britain. Russia has
declared the right of her one hundred and twenty millions of
people to an ice-free port on the Pacific; why shall she not
assert, with equal cogency, the right of these millions to an
ice-free port on the Atlantic? Why should not these millions own
a railway across Scandinavia, and a suitable territory along the
line; and then, logically, all the territory north, and as much
as she needs of the territory south of the line? The northern
and, to some extent, the middle regions of Norway and Sweden
would thus come under the sway of a czar in St. Petersburg,
represented by some governor-general like those who have been
trying to show to the Scandinavians of Finland that newspapers
are useless, petitions inadmissible, constitutions a fetish,
banishment a blessing, and the use of their native language a
superfluity. The only sad thing in this fair prospect is that it
is not the objurgatory Bjornson, the philosophic Ibsen, and the
impulsive Nansen, with their compatriots, now groaning under what
they are pleased to call "Swedish tyranny," who would enjoy this
Russian liberty, but their children, and their children's
children.

At Copenhagen I was especially attracted by the Ethnographic
Museum, which, by its display of the gradual uplifting of
Scandinavian humanity from prehistoric times, has so strongly
aided in enforcing on the world the scientific doctrine of the
"rise of man," and in bringing to naught the theological doctrine
of the "fall of man."

A short stay at Moscow added to my Russian points of view, it
being my second visit after an interval of nearly forty years.
Although the city had spread largely, there was very little
evidence of real progress: everywhere were filth, fetishism,
beggary, and reaction. The monument to Alexander II, the great
emancipator, stood in the Kremlin, half finished; it has since, I
am glad to learn, been completed; but this has only been after
long and slothful delays, and the statue in St. Petersburg has
not even been begun. It is well understood that one cause of this
delay has been the reluctance of the reactionary leaders in the
empire to glorify so radical a movement as the emancipation of
the serfs.

I had one curious experience of Muscovite ideas of trade. Moscow
is one of the main centers for the manufacture of the church
bells in which the Russian peasant takes such delight; and, being
much interested in campanology, I visited several of the
principal foundries, and was delighted with the size and
workmanship of many specimens. Walking one morning to the
Kremlin, I saw at the agency of one of these establishments a
bell weighing about two hundred and fifty pounds, most
exquisitely wrought, and such a beautiful example of the best
that Russians can do in this respect that I went in and asked the
price of it. The price being named, I said that I would take it.
Thereupon consternation was evident in the establishment, and
presently the head of the concern said to me that they were not
sure that they wished to sell it. But I said, "You HAVE sold it;
I asked you what your price was, you told me, and I have bought
it." To this he demurred, and finally refused altogether to sell
it. On going out, my guide informed me that I had made a mistake;
that I was myself the cause of the whole trouble; that if I had
offered half the price named for the bell I should have secured
it for two thirds; but that, as I had offered the entire price,
the people in the shop had jumped to the conclusion that it must
be worth more than they had supposed, that I had detected values
in it which they had not realized, and that it was their duty to
make me pay more for it than the price they had asked. The result
was that, a few weeks afterward, a compromise having been made, I
bought it and sent it to the library of Cornell University, where
it is now both useful and ornamental.

The most interesting feature of this stay in Moscow was my
intercourse with Tolstoi, and to this I have devoted a separate
chapter.[14]

[14] See Chapter XXXVII.

One more experience may be noted. In coming and going on the
Moscow railway I found, as in other parts of Europe, that
governmental control of railways does not at all mean better
accommodations or lower fares than when such works are under
individual control. The prices for travel, as well as for
sleeping-berths, were much higher on these lines, owned by the
government, than on any of our main trunk-lines in America, which
are controlled by private corporations, and the accommodations
were never of a high order, and sometimes intolerable.

During this stay in Russia my sympathies were enlisted for
Finland; but on this subject I have spoken fully elsewhere.[15]

[15] See Chapter XXXIV.

Having resigned my position at St. Petersburg in October of 1894,
the first use I made of my liberty was to go with my family to
Italy for the winter; and several months were passed at Florence,
where I revised and finished the book which had been preparing
during twenty years. Then came a rapid run to Rome and through
southern Italy, my old haunts at Castellammare, Sorrento, and
Amalfi being revisited, and sundry new excursions made. Among
these last was one to Palermo, where I visited the Church of St.
Josaphat. This edifice greatly interested me as a Christian
church erected in honor of a Christian saint who was none other
than Buddha. The manner in which the founder of that great
world-religion which preceded our own was converted into a
Christian saint and solemnly proclaimed as such by a long series
of popes, from Sixtus V to Pius IX, inclusive, by virtue of their
infallibility in all matters relating to faith and morals, is one
of the most curious and instructive things in all history.[16]

[16] A full account of this conversion of Buddha (Bodisat) into
St. Josaphat is given, with authorities, etc. in my "History of
the Warfare of Science with Theology," Vol. II, pp. 381 et seq.

At first I had some difficulty in finding this church; but,
finally, having made the acquaintance of an eminent scholar, the
Commendatore Marzo, canon of the Cappella Palatina and director
of the National Library at Palermo he kindly took me to the
place. Over the entrance were the words, "Divo Josaphat"; within,
occupying one of the places of highest honor, was an altar to the
saint, and above it a statue representing him as a young prince
wearing a crown and holding a crucifix. By permission of the
authorities I was allowed to send a photographer, who took a
negative for me. A remark of the Commendatore Marzo upon the
subject pleased me much. When, one day, after showing me the
treasures of his great library, he was dining with me, and I
pressed him for particulars regarding St. Josaphat, he answered,
"He cannot be the Jehoshaphat of the Old Testament, for he is
represented as a very young man, and contemplating a crucifix: e
molto misterioso." It was, after all, not so very mysterious; for
in these later days, now that the "Life of Barlaam and Josaphat,"
which dates from monks of the sixth or seventh century, has been
compared with the "Life of Buddha," certainly written before the
Christian era, the constant coincidence in details, and even in
phrases, puts it beyond the slightest doubt that St. Josaphat and
Buddha are one and the same person.

Very suggestive to thought was a visit to the wonderful cathedral
of Monreale, above Palermo; for here, at this southern extreme of
Europe, I found a conception of the Almighty as an enlarged human
being, subject to human weakness, identical with that shown in
the sculptures upon the cathedral of Upsala, at the extreme north
of Europe. The whole interior of Monreale Cathedral is covered
with a vast sheet of mosaics dating from about the twelfth
century, and in one series of these, representing the creation,
the Almighty is shown as working, day after day, like an artisan,
and finally, on the seventh day, as "resting,"--seated in almost
the exact attitude of the "weary Mercury" of classic sculpture,
with a marked expression of fatigue upon his countenance and in
the whole disposition of his body.[17]

[17] I have given a more full discussion of this subject in my
"History of the Warfare of Science with Theology," Vol. I, p. 3.

During this journey, having revisited Orvieto, Perugia, and
Assisi, I returned to Florence, and again enjoyed the society of
my old friends, Professor Willard Fiske, Professor Villari, with
his accomplished wife, and Judge Stallo, former minister of the
United States in Rome.

The great event of this stay was an earthquake. Seated on a
pleasant April evening in my rooms at the house built by Adolphus
Trollope, near the Piazza dell' Independenza, I heard what seemed
at first the rising of a storm; then the rushing of a mighty
wind; then, as it grew stronger, apparently the gallop of a corps
of cavalry in the neighboring avenue; but, almost instantly, it
seemed to change into the onrush of a corps of artillery, and, a
moment later, to strike the house, lifting its foundations as if
by some mighty hand, and swaying it to and fro, everything
creaking, groaning, rattling, and seeming likely to fall in upon
us. This movement to and fro, with crashing and screaming inside
and outside the house, continued, as it seemed to me, about
twenty minutes--as a matter of fact, it lasted hardly seven
seconds; but certainly it was the longest seven seconds I have
ever known. At the first uplift of the seismic wave my wife and I
rose from our seats, I saying, "Stand perfectly still."
Thenceforward, not a word was uttered by either of us until all
was over; but many thoughts came,--the dominant feeling being a
sense of our helplessness in the presence of the great powers of
nature. Neither of us had any hope of escaping alive; but we
calmly accepted the inevitable, thinking each moment would be,
the last. As I look back, our resignation and perfect quiet still
surprise me. That room, at the corner of the Villino Trollope,
which an ill-founded legend makes the place where George Eliot
wrote "Romola," is to me sacred, as the place where we two passed
"from death unto life."

Nearly all that night we remained near the doors of the house,
ready to escape any new shocks; but only one or two came, and
those very light. Crowds of the population remained out of doors,
many dwellers in hotels taking refuge in carriages and cabs, and
staying in them through the night.

Next morning I walked forth to find what had happened,--first to
the cathedral, to see if anything was left of Giotto's tower and
Brunelleschi's dome, and, to my great joy, found them standing;
but, as I entered the vast building, I saw one of the enormous
iron bars which take the thrust of the wide arches of the nave
pulled apart and broken as if it had been pack-thread; there were
also a few cracks in one of the piers supporting the dome, but
all else was as before.

At the Palazzo Strozzi a crowd of people were examining sundry
crevices which had been made in its mighty walls: and at various
villas in the neighborhood, especially those on the road to San
Miniato, I found that the damage had been much worse. A part of
the tower of one villa, occupied by an English lady of literary
distinction, had been thrown down, crashing directly through one
of the upper rooms, but causing no loss of life; the villa of
Judge Stallo, at the Porta Romana, was so wrecked that he was
obliged to leave it; and in the house of another friend a heavy
German stove on the upper floor, having been thrown over, had
come down through the ceiling of the main parlor, crashing
through the grand piano, and thence into the cellar, without
injury to any person. One of the professors whom I afterward met
told me that he was giving a dinner-party when, suddenly, the
house was lifted and shaken to and fro, the chandeliers swinging,
broken glass crashing, and the ladies screaming, and, in a
moment, a portion of the outer wall gave way, but fortunately
fell outward, so that the guests scrambled forth over the ruins,
and passed the night in the garden. Perhaps the worst damage was
wrought at the Convent of the Certosa, where some of the
beautiful old work was irreparably injured.

It was very difficult next morning to get any real information
from the newspapers. They claimed that but three persons lost
their lives in the city: it was clearly thought best to minimize
the damage done, lest the stream of travel might be scared away.
I remarked at the time that we should never know fully what had
occurred until we received the American papers; and, curiously
enough, several weeks afterward a Californian showed me a very
full and minute account of the whole calamity, with careful
details, given in the telegraphic reports of a San Francisco
newspaper on the very morning after the earthquake.

On the way to America I passed a short time, during the month of
June, in London, meeting various interesting people, a most
pleasant occasion to me being a dinner given by Mr. Bayard, the
American minister, at which I met my classmate Wayne MacVeagh,
formerly attorney-general of the United States, minister to
Constantinople and ambassador to Rome, full, as usual, of
interesting reminiscence and witty suggestion. Very interesting
also to me was a talk with Mr. Holman Hunt, the eminent
pre-Raphaelite artist. He told me much of Tennyson dwelling upon
his morbid fear that people would stare at him. He also gave an
account of his meeting with Ruskin at Venice, when Ruskin took
Hunt to task for not having come to see him more frequently in
London; to which Hunt replied that, for one reason, he was very
busy, and that, for another, he did not wish to be classed with
the toadies who swarmed about Ruskin. Whereupon Ruskin said that
Hunt was right regarding the character of most of the people
about him. Hunt also spoke of the ill treatment of his beautiful
picture, "The Light of the World." From him, or from another
source about that time, I learned that formerly the Keble College
people had made much of it; but that, some one having interpreted
the rays passing through the different openings of the lantern in
Christ's hand as typifying truth shining through different
religious conceptions, the owners of the picture distrusted it,
and had recently refused to allow its exhibition in London.

It surprised me to find Holman Hunt so absorbed in his own art
that he apparently knew next to nothing about that of other
European masters,--nothing of Puvis de Chavannes at Paris;
nothing of Menzel, Knaus, and Werner at Berlin.

Having returned to America, I was soon settled in my old
homestead at Cornell,--as I supposed for the rest of my life.
Very delightful to me during this as well as other sojourns at
Cornell after my presidency were sundry visits to American
universities at which I was asked to read papers or make
addresses. Of these I may mention Harvard, Yale, and the State
universities of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, at each of
which I addressed bodies of students on subjects which seemed to
me important, among these "The Diplomatic Service of the United
States," "Democracy and Education," "Evolution vs. Revolution in
Politics," and "The Problem of High Crime in the United States."
To me, as an American citizen earnestly desiring a noble future
for my country, it was one of the greatest of pleasures to look
into the faces of those large audiences of vigorous young men and
women, and, above all, at the State universities of the West,
which are to act so powerfully through so many channels of
influence in this new century. The last of the subjects
above-named interested me painfully, and I was asked to present
it to large general audiences, and not infrequently to the
congregations of churches. I had become convinced that looseness
in the administration of our criminal law is one of the more
serious dangers to American society, and my earlier studies in
this field were strengthened by my observations in the
communities I had visited during the long journey through our
Southern and Pacific States, to which I have just referred. Of
this I shall speak later.

Returning to Washington in February of 1897, I joined the
Venezuela Commission in presenting its report to the President
and Secretary of State, and so ended my duties under the
administration of Mr. Cleveland. Of my connection with the
political campaign of 1896 I have spoken elsewhere. In May of
1897, having been appointed by President McKinley ambassador to
Berlin, I sailed for Europe, and my journeys since that time have
consisted mainly of excursions to interesting historical
localities in Germany, with several short vacations in the
principal towns of northern Italy, upon the Riviera, and in
America.

PART VII

MISCELLANEOUS RECOLLECTIONS

CHAPTER LVI

THE CARDIFF GIANT: A CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN
FOLLY--1869-1870

The traveler from New York to Niagara by the northern route is
generally disappointed in the second half of his journey. During
the earlier hours of the day, moving rapidly up the valleys,
first of the Hudson and next of the Mohawk, he passes through a
succession of landscapes striking or pleasing, and of places
interesting from their relations to the French and Revolutionary
wars. But, arriving at the middle point of his journey,--the head
waters of the Mohawk,--a disenchantment begins. Thenceforward he
passes through a country tame, monotonous, and with cities and
villages as uninteresting in their appearance as in their names;
the latter being taken, apparently without rhyme or reason, from
the classical dictionary or the school geography.

And yet, during all that second half of his excursion, he is
passing almost within musket-shot of one of the most beautiful
regions of the Northern States,--the lake country of central and
western New York.

It is made up of a succession of valleys running from south to
north, and lying generally side by side, each with a beauty of
its own. Some, like the Oneida and the Genesee, are broad
expanses under thorough cultivation; others, like the Cayuga and
Seneca, show sheets of water long and wide, their shores
sometimes indented with glens and gorges, and sometimes rising
with pleasant slopes to the wooded hills; in others still, as the
Cazenovia, Skaneateles, Owasco, Keuka, and Canandaigua, smaller
lakes are set, like gems, among vineyards and groves; and in
others shimmering streams go winding through corn-fields and
orchards fringed by the forest.