Again, on August 3, 'just as Sir Edward Grey was leaving for the Cabinet meeting, Prince Lichnowsky called to few hours whether his Government would confirm it or not. Sir Edward Grey has been attacked by J. Ramsay MacDonald (New York Evening Post, September 8, 1914) and others because he did not communicate this offer to Parliament and because he did not make any effort to formulate conditions upon which England could remain neutral. According to the report in the London Times, Sir Edward Grey answered Mr. Hardie as follows in the House of Commons on August 27:

"MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil, Lab.) asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the suggestions for a peace settlement made by the German Ambassador (White Paper, p. 66, no. 123), together with his invitation to the Foreign Secretary to put forward proposals of his own which would be acceptable as a basis for neutrality, were submitted to and considered by the Cabinet, and, if not, why proposals involving such far-reaching possibilities were thus rejected.

"SIR E. GREY (Northumberland, Berwick) These were personal suggestions made by the Ambassador on August 1, and without authority to alter the conditions of neutrality proposed to us by the German Chancellor in no. 85 in the White Paper - Miscellaneous, no. 6, [1914].

"The Cabinet did, however, consider most carefully the next morning — that is, Sunday, August 2- the conditions on which we could remain neutral, and came to the conclusion that respect for the neutrality of Belgium must be one of these conditions. [Hear, hear!] The German Chancellor had already been told on July 30 that we could not bargain that way.

"On Monday, August 3, I made a statement in the House accordingly. I had seen the German Ambassador again at his own request on Monday, and he urged me most strongly, though he said that he did not know the plans of the German military authorities, not to make the neutrality of Belgium one of our conditions when I spoke in the House. It was a day of great pressure, for we had another Cabinet in the morning, and I had no time to record the conversation, and therefore it does not appear in the White Paper; but it was impossible to withdraw that condition [loud cheers] without becoming a consenting party to the violation of the treaty, and subsequently to a German attack on Belgium.

"After I spoke in the House we made to the German Government the communication described in no. 153 in the White Paper about the neutrality of Belgium. Sir Edward Goschen's report of the reply to that communication had not been received when the White Paper was printed and laid. It will be laid before Parliament to complete the White Paper.

"I have been asked why I did not refer to no. 123 in the White Paper when I spoke in the House on August 3. If I had referred to suggestions to us as to conditions of neutrality I must have referred to no. 85, the proposals made, not personally by the Ambassador, but officially by the German Chancellor, which were so condemned by the Prime Minister subsequently, and this would have made the case against the German Government much stronger than I did make it in my speech. [Hear, hear!] I deliberately refrained from doing that then.

"Let me add this about personal suggestions made by the German Am

urge him to say that the neutrality of England did not depend upon respect for Belgian neutrality. Sir Edward refused to discuss the matter, and the German Ambassador, according to the report of M. Cambon, gave out to the press a communiqué1 stating that if England remained neutral, Germany would forego all naval operation and would not use the Belgian coasts as a supporting base. The French Ambassador informed his Government that he was replying that respect for coasts was not respect for the neutrality of territory, and that the German ultimatum was in itself a violation of neutrality.' (Modified quotation, August 3, F. Y. B. no. 144; cf. F. Y. B. no. 126.)

9. Divergence of opinion in England

Up to this point we have been examining certain aspects of the attitude assumed by England when first brought face to face with the European crisis. Sir Edward Grey could be sure of the unanimous support of the country in pursuing a policy which offered some chance of averting a war at the same time that it left open the question of the conditions which might necessitate armed intervention on bassador, as distinct from communications made on behalf of his Government. He worked for peace; but real authority at Berlin did not rest with him and others like him, and that is one reason why our efforts for peace failed. [Loud cheers.]

"MR. KEIR HARDIE - May I ask whether any attempt was made to open up negotiations with Germany on the basis of suggestions here set forth by the German Ambassador?

"SIR E. GREY - The German Ambassador did not make any basis of suggestions. It was the German Chancellor who made the basis of suggestions. The German Ambassador, speaking on his own personal initiative and without authority, asked whether we would formulate conditions on which we would be neutral. We did go into that question, and those conditions were stated to the House and made known to the German Ambassador.

"MR. KEIR HARDIE [who was received with cries of 'Oh!' from all parts of the House] -May I ask whether the German authorities at Berlin repudiated the suggestions of their Ambassador in London, and whether any effort at all [renewed cries of 'Oh!' and 'Order!'] was made to find out how far the German Government would have agreed to the suggestions put before them by their own Ambassador?" (London Times, August 28, 1914.) 1 See post, p. 360.

the part of Great Britain. From the very start it was evident that the Austro-German and the Franco-Russian groups were each acting in the closest accord, and that neither Germany nor France was inclined to exert any pressure upon its ally. In this situation Sir Edward Grey had to use the whole strength of his position to influence and stimulate the peaceful efforts of each group; he was the better able to do this because of England's long-established cordial understanding with France and her relations with Germany, which had gradually been becoming more friendly as a result of the collaboration of the two Governments at the recent conference in London, when they had succeeded in avoiding a Balkan war.1

Even before the presentation of the Austrian ultimatum, Sir Edward Grey had been in discussion with the German Ambassador, pointing out to him that the influence the English Government could exert in Russia would depend upon the nature of the Austrian demands on Servia. No sooner had the Austrian note been presented than the principal diplomatic effort of all the great powers was directed upon Sir Edward Grey to win his support for one side or the other. He held his ground steadfastly, encouraging now one, now the other. In view of Russia's assuming a most correct and conciliatory attitude and inducing Servia to astonish the world by the extent of her concessions to the intentionally insulting Austrian demands, he refused to acquiesce in the German Ambassador's attempt to put off on Russia the responsibility for the outcome. In no uncertain terms he imparted to Prince Lichnowsky his characterization of Austria's action in case she should put the Servian reply aside as worthless and march into Servia, reckless of the consequences. In this same interview Sir Edward Grey promised, as long as

1 This close sympathy and cooperation was clearly indicated by the Anglo-German discussions relative to an eventual partition of the Portuguese colonial possessions. (See Documents: Anglo-German Relations, post, chap. XIII.)

Germany would work for peace, to keep in close touch. (B. W. P. no. 46.) Lest, however, Austria and Germany might believe - as the Russian Ambassador asserted they did- that England would stand aside in any event, Sir Edward rewarded Russia and Servia for their conciliatory action by publishing the news that the First Fleet had not been dispersed. (July 27, B. W. P. no. 47; July 27, F. Y. B. no. 66.)

Yet Sir Edward did not encourage Russia to relax her efforts to reach a peaceful solution through a feeling that she was certain of England's support; at the same time that he showed his appreciation of Russia's action by informing the Russian Ambassador of the retention of the fleet, he added significantly that his reference to the fleet must not be understood as promising anything more than diplomatic action. (B. W. P. no. 47.)

While Sir Edward continued to declare that England was not concerned in a Balkan question, he proposed various bases for the mediation of the four less interested powers to avoid an Austro-Russian conflict. When Germany refused to participate in a mediation conference, he emphatically declared that if Germany intervened in an Austro-Russian conflict, brought on by the unjustifiable aggression of Austria against Servia, it would be because Germany, without any reference to the merits of the dispute, could not afford to see Austria crushed.1 Just so he hinted that other issues might be raised which would supersede the dispute between Austria and Servia and would bring other powers in. (B. W. P. no. 46.) This was equivalent to an intimation that, when France came to the support of Russia by reason of her obligation under the Dual Alliance, England might consider that she was under a certain moral obligation to support her partner in the Entente against Germany, whose aggressive action would

1 That is to say, Germany's action would not be based upon the casus fæderis of a defensive alliance, but would be a matter of policy.

1

have dragged her unwillingly into a conflict. Besides, it was clear that England's vital interests might be affected in such a way as to make it very difficult for her to keep out. On the other hand, when Sir Edward Grey informed the French Ambassador of his intention to warn 1 the German Ambassador of the consequences which might result in case Germany supported Austria in her unjustifiably aggressive action, he distinctly told M. Paul Cambon that it would not be fair to let him be "misled into supposing that this meant that they had decided what to do in a contingency that he still hoped might not arise." 2 (July 29, B. W. P. no. 87.) Against this statement M. Cambon could urge nothing except his understanding of English interests which, he said, required her intervention. England was, indeed, absolutely free to remain out or not as she

1 The difference between a warning and a threat is, that in a warning, the actual condition of affairs is set forth in an objective manner by one speaking with expert knowledge. Such an exposition makes plain the inevitable consequences of a certain course of action. A threat implies an intentionally retaliatory action, and is a conditional declaration of hostility which often has an injurious effect upon relations hitherto friendly.

2 It has been ably argued by Dr. Karl Helfferich (New York Times, March 14, 1915) that this declaration decided France to promise her support to Russia (see above chap. v), and that Sir Edward Grey's attempt to play the rôle of an independent mediator was doomed to failure because England was bound by the Entente to help France. Yet elsewhere in the same article Dr. Helfferich points out how anxious France was about England's attitude up to August 2, and he concurs with the German Chancellor's opinion that England should have informed Russia that she would not allow a European war to result from the Austro-Servian dispute. (See Chancellor's speech in the Reichstag, December 2, 1914, post, chap. XII.) This would hardly be consistent with England's recognition of an obligation to support France. By notifying France that she might not support her (B. W. P. no. 87), Sir Edward Grey plainly intimated that England was not bound. Before reaching any conclusion about this question, one has to consider the effect of Germany's attitude in regard to Belgium. The whole situation is made clear by Sir Edward Grey's offers of July 31 to desert France and Russia if they refused to coöperate in any reasonable peace proposal put forward by Germany. (B. W. P. no. 111.) To admit that England was bound to support France would have meant that she was pledged to protect Russia from aggression to the same extent as France. It is hard to believe that England would have obligated herself to such an extent without some quid pro quo.