The explanatory telegram of the German Ambassador, dated August 2, was:

"Sir E. Grey's suggestions were prompted by a desire to make it possible for England to keep permanent neutrality, but as they were not based on a previous under

France. I shall see Sir Edward Grey this afternoon and will at once report.'

"(2) At 5.30 P.M.

666 'Sir Edward Grey has just read to me the following declaration which had been unanimously applied (sic) by the Cabinet:

"""The reply of the German Government with regard to the neutrality of Belgium is a matter of very great regret because the neutrality of Belgium does affect feeling in this country. If Germany could see her way to give the same positive reply, as that which has been given by France, it would materially contribute to relieve anxiety and tension here, while, on the other hand, if there were a violation of the neutrality of Belgium by one combatant while the other respected it, it would be extremely difficult to restrain public opinion in this country."

""To my question, whether he could give me a definite guaranty as to the neutrality of England in case we respected the neutrality of Belgium, the Minister responded that he was unable to do so. However, this question would have an important bearing upon English public opinion. If, in a war against France, we should violate the neutrality of Belgium, it would surely cause a change in public opinion which would make it very difficult for the British Government to maintain an amicable neutrality. So far, there was not the slightest intention to take hostile measures against us. The desire prevailed of refraining from such measures, as far as possible. Yet one could hardly draw a line up to which we might safely proceed, without calling forth British intervention. He repeatedly recurred to the neutrality of Belgium, and said that this question would, at all events, play a great rôle. He said that he had already thought it over whether it would be possible that we and France would, in the event of a Russian war, remain in a state of armed opposition, without attacking each other. I asked him whether he was in a position to declare that France would be prepared to enter such a pact. Since we had no intention of either annihilating France, nor of annexing parts of her territory, I was inclined to think that we might be open for such an agreement which would secure for us the neutrality of Great Britain. The Minister said that he would make inquiries, adding that he did not under-rate the difficulties of maintaining military inactivity on both sides.'

"(3) At 8.30 P.M.

"My report of this morning is cancelled by my report of to-night. Since positive English proposals are not forthcoming, further steps in the direction indicated in (Your Excellency's) instructions are useless.'

"Obviously the above telegrams contain no hint whatsoever that there

standing with France and made without knowledge of our mobilization, they have been abandoned as absolutely hopeless." (August 2, G. W. B. exhibit 36.)

At first view one might be inclined to think that the German Ambassador, whose sincerity seems never to have been questioned, could not have made such a mistake unless Sir Edward Grey had made some such proposal, perhaps only tentative. Entirely aside from the reliance which I think may be placed upon Sir Edward Grey's word, it is most improbable that England would have agreed to stand aside and let Germany and Austria unite in an attempt to crush Russia, while England restrained France. France had let it appear clearly that she wanted peace, but that she would, nevertheless, support her ally if attacked by Germany, and England, if she had guaranteed the neutrality of France, would have placed the latter in a dependent and humiliated position. The result of a policy so fatuous might have been to allow Germany to crush Russia, perhaps, and then turn later against England. Again, if we were to question the sincerity of Germany's Ambassador, Prince Lichnowsky, we might discover a plot to pretend a conversation which had not occurred, and by answering it to put on record material apt to create in Russia suspicions of France and England, and in France distrust of England, so as to break up the cordial coöperation of the members of the Entente. But in that case, Sir Edward Grey would not have known anything of Prince had been a misunderstanding, nor anything about the removal of the alleged misunderstanding, as affirmed by the English statesman."

The same publication contains the following remarks about this exchange of correspondence:

"... It will be perceived from these documents that Germany was prepared to spare France in case England should remain neutral and would guarantee the neutrality of France.

"The essence of Germany's declarations is contained in Emperor William's telegram to the King of England of August 1st, 1914. Even if there existed a misunderstanding as to an English proposal, the Kaiser's offer furnished England the opportunity to prove her pacific disposition and to prevent the Franco-German War."

Lichnowsky's letter to his Government, explaining his mistake. In reality, it seems then that Prince Lichnowsky must have misunderstood. Sir Edward Grey may perhaps have asked whether, if he prevailed upon France to remain neutral, Germany would hold aloof. Some such remark Lichnowsky may possibly have understood as an offer to secure the neutrality of France; but to believe this makes it impossible to place a very high estimate on the German Ambassador's intelligence. With the best intentions, he was unable to handle the situation as his predecessor Von Bieberstein would have done.1

1 The London Times of August 27 (p. 5), giving the important parts of the letters published in the Gazette, and Lichnowsky's supposed telegram of explanation, comments:

"PRINCE LICHNOWSKY'S BLUNDER

"Prince Lichnowsky's telegram of August 1 was based upon a complete misunderstanding of the subject of a conversation. It was in fact a serious professional blunder of which the only explanation can be that Prince Lichnowsky, who was himself working sincerely and seriously for an Austro-Russian settlement, was not equal to the strain imposed upon him. There was no question of French neutrality in the event of a Russo-German war.' Sir Edward Grey was merely making one last desperate effort to see whether Germany could be induced to remain neutral if England secured the neutrality of France.

"We understand that immediately after the telephone conversation, which took place at 11.30 in the morning of August 1, there was an official conversation with Prince Lichnowsky in which it was plainly pointed out that what would be a casus fœderis for Germany must imply a casus fœderis for France — that if Germany fought, France must fight also. Prince Lichnowsky at once said that he had been under a misapprehension, and telegraphed to Berlin a correction of his previous telegram. His second telegram has simply been suppressed, and the German Government actually publishes the German Ambassador's inaccurate dispatch in order to give a fresh proof of British perfidy and of Germany's eagerness to accept any proposal making for peace.

"Meanwhile we may at any rate be grateful for the publication of the extraordinary telegram sent by the Emperor William when he was given to believe that England was offering to look after France while Germany attacked Russia. So far from remaining quiet herself, Germany was to move her troops from the French frontier in order to employ them 'elsewhere.' There was, moreover, to be no shadow of doubt about France keeping quiet, for England was not merely to procure a declaration of French neutrality - in fact, the destruction

The English Government must have felt justly incensed to learn, on July 31, "not from St. Petersburg, but from Germany, that Russia had proclaimed a general mobilization of her army and fleet." And it is very possible that

of the Franco-Russian Alliance - but was to guarantee French neutrality with the whole strength of the British Army and Navy." Dr. Bernhard Dernburg, in an article in the New York Sun of Sunday, October 11, implies that the British Government left out of the White Paper the so-called "Willy," "Georgie," and "Nicky" correspondence for fear it might prejudice their case. The following Sunday the well-known historian, George Louis Beer, in a vigorous defense of the British Government publication, says of this omission:

"The explanation is quite simple to one versed in British constitutional practice, but is naturally not so plain to the citizen of a country whose monarch claims to be the direct agent of God. As a result of prolonged struggles the House of Commons ultimately established its predominance in the British Commonwealth, and while leaving most of the powers of the Crown intact, it successfully insisted upon the exercise of those functions by Ministers responsible to it. Hence the essential negotiations prior to the outbreak of war were conducted by the Foreign Secretary. This does not, however, imply that the King's personal influence is not at times used by the Ministry in a delicate diplomatic situation.

"But unquestionably all letters and telegrams from the King to the Kaiser and Prince Henry of Prussia were either drafted by Sir Edward Grey or submitted to him for approval. This is a necessary consequence of the system of a responsible government. Thus Queen Victoria under similar circumstances was at times obliged in her own handwriting to express opinions far other than those she really held. But why, it may be asked, was this ancillary correspondence not published? Here again one runs across some peculiar features of the British Constitution resulting from the adaptation of mediæval forms to democratic conditions. According to British practice a Minister is responsible for every executive act, and the King's name must not be brought into the political discussions either within or without Parliament. It is obvious that if this personal correspondence of the King were laid before Parliament there would be a violation of this fundamental principle, without which the system of responsible government cannot work smoothly. Moreover, these documents were naturally in complete accord with those submitted, and were in no way essential to the formation of a correct judgment by Parliament. Had there been any divergence Dr. Dernburg's query would have some point."

1 Statement of Mr. Asquith, July 31; see London Times, August 1, 1914. The date of the Austrian general mobilization is in dispute. (Cf. F. Y. B. no. 115.) M. Viviani stated: "But while these negotiations were going on, and while Russia in the negotiations showed a good-will which cannot be disputed, Austria was the first to proceed to a general mobilization." (Extract, F. Y. B. no. 127.) Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence indi

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.