Sir Edward Grey was negotiating with Prince Lichnowsky in an attempt to find some way of allowing France and England to keep out of the fray, so that Russia might be left to pay the penalty of her ill-timed and precipitate mobilization. In any event, the attitude of the German Government in regard to Belgium and the determination of France to support Russia under all circumstances would have rendered such efforts of no avail.

13. Germany's detention of English vessels

On August 1, Sir Edward Grey telegraphed Sir Edward Goschen in reference to the detention of British vessels: "We are informed that authorities at Hamburg have forcibly detained steamers belonging to the Great Central Company and other British merchant ships.

"I cannot ascertain on what grounds the detention of British ships has been ordered.

cates that Russia was the first to order a general mobilization. M. Auguste Gauvin, in his article, on Les origines de la guerre Européenne, states: "The posting up of orders completing the bulletins which announced partial mobilization took place only the 1st of August in part of the monarchy." (Translated from La Revue de Paris, December 15, 1914, p. 414, note 1.) Professors Durkheim and Denis take a different view. (Durkheim and Denis: Who Wanted War? p. 40, note 2. Paris, 1915.)

1 In this connection the remark in the London Times of August 27 (see above, p. 334), that Prince Lichnowsky was guilty of a "serious professional blunder," seems to convey the idea that some very confidential matters were under discussion. The Oxford professors make the following statement: "One more effort to preserve peace in western Europe seems to have been made by Sir Edward Grey. On the telephone he asked Prince Lichnowsky whether, if France remained neutral, Germany would promise not to attack her. The impression seems to have prevailed in Berlin that this was an offer to guarantee French neutrality by the force of British arms, and the German Emperor in his telegram to the King gave evidence of the relief His Imperial Majesty felt at the prospect that the good relations between the two countries would be maintained. Unfortunately for such hopes, France had never been consulted in the matter, nor was there ever any idea of coercing France into neutrality, and even the original proposal had to be abandoned on consideration as unpractical." (Extract from Why We are at War, by Members of the Oxford Faculty of Modern History, p. 87. Clarendon Press, 1914.)

The authors of these remarks must have had exceptional facilities for ascertaining what actually took place.

"You should request German Government to send immediate orders that they should be allowed to proceed without delay. The effect on public opinion here will be deplorable unless this is done. His Majesty's Government, on their side, are most anxious to avoid any incident of an aggressive nature, and the German Government will, I hope, be equally careful not to take any step which would make the situation between us impossible." (August 1, B. W. P. no. 130.)

The German Secretary of State 'expressed the greatest surprise and annoyance and promised to send orders at once to allow steamers to proceed without delay.' (Modified quotation, August 1, B. W. P. no. 143.) The Secretary said that 'this must be regarded as a special favor to His Majesty's Government, as no other foreign ships have been allowed to leave. Reason of detention was that mines were being laid and other precautions being taken.' (Modified quotation, August 2, B. W. P. no. 145.)

The next day, August 2, Sir Edward Grey lodged protest against unloading and holding of British cargoes of sugar (B. W. P. no. 150); but the British Ambassador reported "no information available." (Extract, August 3, B. W. P. no. 150.)

14. Germany invades Luxemburg

On August 2, Sir Edward Grey received the following dispatch from the Minister of State of Luxemburg: "I have the honor to bring to Your Excellency's notice the following facts:

"On Sunday, the 2d of August, very early, the German troops, according to the information which has up to now reached the Grand Ducal Government, penetrated into Luxemburg territory by the bridges of Wasserbillig and Remich, and proceeded particularly toward the south and in the direction of Luxemburg, the capital of the Grand Duchy. A certain number of armored trains with troops

and ammunition have been sent along the railway line from Wasserbillig to Luxemburg, where their arrival is expected. These occurrences constitute acts which are manifestly contrary to the neutrality of the Grand Duchy as guaranteed by the Treaty of London of 1867. The Luxemburg Government have not failed to address an energetic protest against this aggression to the representatives of His Majesty, the German Emperor, at Luxemburg. An identical protest will be sent by telegraph to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berlin." (August 2, B. W. P. no. 147.)

Sir Edward received a second dispatch the same day:

"The Luxemburg Minister of State has just received through the German Minister in Luxemburg, M. de Buch, a telegram from the Chancellor of the German Empire, Bethmann-Hollweg, to the effect that the military measures taken in Luxemburg do not constitute a hostile act against Luxemburg, but are only intended to insure against a possible attack of a French Army. Full compensation will be paid to Luxemburg for any damage caused by using the railways, which are leased to the Empire. (August 2, B. W. P. no. 129.)

When M. Paul Cambon 'asked Sir Edward about the violation of Luxemburg, he stated to him the doctrine on that point laid down by Lord Derby and Lord Clarendon in 1867, but when the Ambassador asked what the British Government would say about the violation of the neutrality of Belgium, the British Minister replied that that was a much more important matter and that they were considering what statement they should make in Parliament next day -in effect, whether they should declare the violation of Belgian neutrality a casus belli.' (Modified quotation, August 2, B. W. P. no. 148.)

In reporting this interview, M. Cambon says that 'the Secretary of State reminded me that the convention of 1867 relative to Luxemburg differed from the treaty rela

tive to Belgium in this sense, that England was bound to uphold this latter agreement without the support of the other guaranteeing powers, while, for Luxemburg, all the guaranteeing powers must act in concert.' (Modified quotation, August 2, F. Y. B. no. 137.)

It seems to have been lost sight of that this violation by Germany of the perpetual neutrality of Luxemburg was contrary to her solemn treaty obligations, and hence a conspicuous violation of international law; for the German Empire had inherited the obligation of Prussia to respect and guarantee the perpetual neutrality of Luxemburg, undertaken by the Treaty of London. The principle of the perpetual neutrality of Luxemburg was "placed under the sanction of the collective guarantee of the powers,"1 and England has expressly stated that she did not understand the treaty of guaranty to compel her to make war against a guarantor to secure its respect. This is a weakness in the logic of England's stand, for why should she from a legal point of view be any more bound in the case of Belgium? Only because in the latter case her political interests and her obligations under international law coincide. It is to be remarked, however, that it is one thing for a nation to refuse to make war to uphold the neutrality of Luxemburg, and another to be guilty itself of violating it. The violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg will be more fully discussed in the following chapter.2

15. England agrees to protect the French coast

On August 1, Sir Edward Grey told M. Paul Cambon that, when informing the Cabinet that Germany had declared "herself not in a position to reply," regarding Belgian neutrality, he would 'ask for authority to tell the House of Commons on Monday [August 3] that the British Government would not permit a violation of Belgian neutrality. In the second place, Sir Edward said that he 1 Wicker, Neutralization, p. 30. 1911. 2 Chap. IX, § 8.

would propose to his colleagues that they should declare that the fleet, the squadrons of which were mobilized, would oppose the passage of the German squadrons through the Straits; or, if they passed the Straits, that they would oppose any attack upon the French coasts. M. Cambon pointed out to the Secretary that if between then and Monday, when the Cabinet would discuss these questions, any serious incident should occur, it would not do to be taken by surprise and that it would be well to consider intervening in time.' (Modified quotation, August 1, F. Y. B. no. 126.)

The morning of August 2, after the meeting of the Cabinet, Sir Edward Grey gave M. Cambon the following memoranda:

"I am authorized to give an assurance that, if the German fleet comes into the Channel or through the North Sea to undertake hostile operations against French coasts or shipping, the British fleet will give all the protection in its power.

"This assurance is, of course, subject to the policy of His Majesty's Government receiving the support of Parliament, and must not be taken as binding His Majesty's Government to take any action until the above contingency of action by the German fleet takes place." 1 (August 2, B. W. P. no. 148.)

1 An editorial in the London Times, August 3, gives a résumé of the situation and sets forth its understanding of England's vital interests: "The whole situation has been revolutionized by the events of yesterday. The doubts which many of us tried hard to cherish as to Germany's real intentions have been dispelled by her high-handed contempt for public law. The Government and the nation now realize that she has been bent on a European war -a European war to be waged in the first instance against France, and through at least one of those neutral States whose safety we have bound ourselves to defend because it is indispensable to our own. The Cabinet, which has been sitting almost uninterruptedly since Saturday morning, reached a decision at an early hour yesterday, which shows that they know what is before us. They have called up the Naval Reserves. They would not have taken this step had they not felt that in this quarrel our interests are now directly at stake. . . . Here at home and in the far-off dominions the sure instinct of our peoples teaches them that the ruin of France or of