The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1905. PEACE CONVENTIONS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12599, 13 September 1905, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "Nulla Dies Sine Linea." WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1905. PEACE CONVENTIONS.

As no two wars sre alike, so the conditions under which belligerents meet to settle their quarrels are different. The chief difference between peace conferences, says the "Age,".ir. a very interesting review of the great historical conferences, is whether only the principals ara concerned or representatives of other Powers are also admitted. In the latter case they are called conferences. Of the'first kind, says the writer, was the recent conference at Portsmouth, where Russia and Japan alone met at the council table, an application by China to be represented having been summarily rejected. The conditions were similar in this respect at the confeience which resulted in the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871, though the situation was much simpler then than it is now in the Far East. After the disaster at Sedan, Jules Favre, the French Foreign Minister, made his memorable declaration-that' "not an inch of our territory, not a stone of our fortresses," should, be ceded to Germany. But Fiance had in the end to cede many square miles of territory and two of her greatest fortresses. Each nation was represented by its foremost man, Germany by Bismarck and France by Tliiers. The insistence of the Frenchman so far prevailed that he succeeded' in retaining the fortress of Belfort and in reducing the indemnity from £250,----000,000 to £200,000,000. , But it is customary for negotiating powers to demand at first higher terms than they are prepared eventually to concede. This was no doubt the. case with Bismarck, although France likes to think that the concession was due to the entreaties of Thiers. At the Berlin Congress, after the Russo-Turkish war in 1878, besides Russia and Turkey, Germany, England, France, Austria, and Italy were represented. The protagonists were Lord Beaconsfield and Prince Gortscbakoff, the Russian Chancellor, while Prince Bismarck presided, prepared to act in his avowed role of "the honest broker." Some interesting revelations have lately been made respecting the congress, the authority for them being an article in the "Nineteenth Century" by Mr. A. N. Cum-. ming, who derived his information from the late Lord Rowton, private secretary to the Earl of Bea~consfield. They throw much light on Russian diplomatic methods. After a good deal of discussion th<3 British plenipotentiaries, Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury, put forward four points, which were virtually an ultimatum, for acceptance by Russia. Acting on their usual principle of delaying negotiations as long as possible, the Russian representatives said that these points were so important that they must be referred to the Emperor. The sittings were" therefore adj journed for three or four days. Lord [ Beaconsfield concluded that Russia would not concede the points in question, and decided to return to England and declare war against that Power. He told Lord Rowton, who sent a telegram to the stationmaster at Cologne, ordering him to have a special train reay by a certain time. However, when the congress met again, Russia, to the surprise of Lord Beaconsfield, gave way on all the four points. The explanation was that Lord Rowton's telegram had been sent by the stationmaster to Prince Bismarck, who saw that Beaconsfield was in earnest. He informed Russia, which thereupon gave way. It was discovered later that the Russians had received orders from the Czar to submit practically to anything rather than go to war with England. Of all the peace congresses of modern times, the most famous and remarkable was the Congress of Vienna in 1814-15. On several accounts it was unique among gatherings of the kind. It was an assembly representative of all the States of Europe, ostensibly to decide upon the settlement of Europe after the great changes brought about by Napoleon As a matter of fact, the four leading powers, England, Russia, Prussia, and Austriaj known as the Allies, had by a secret agreement reserved to themselves the right of settling the affairs of "the countries abandoned by France,' and the arrangements necessary for establishing a permanent equilibrium." Thus, although 90 sovereign princes and 53 mediatised princes sent plenipotentiaries to Vienna, only those of the Allies did anything. The congress had only to register the decisions of the allied Powers. Various dates were from time to time fixed for the opening of the congress and the' submission and examination of credentials. But the congress was never opened at all. There was really no congress. Committees of plenipotentiaries met and signed treaties between particular States. Neither France nor the minor kingdoms and principalities had any voice in the settlement, which was purely the work of the Allies, and was embodied in a single document called "the final act of the Congress of Vienna." Balls, dinners, and receptions occupied the time of the plenipotentiaries -who had no serious business to transact. Other remarkable features of this congress were the differences among the Allies, who nearly came to blows over the division of the spoil, and its interruption by the return of Napoleon from Elba and the renewal of the war. At all peace conferences much has depended on the personal characters of the diplomats entrusted with the negotiations. In the conference that led to

the Treaty of Amiens, in 1802, England was unfortunate in her representative. The Marquis Cornwallis was a distinguished administrator, but he was not a diplomatist, had forgotten much of his French, and was no match for Joseph Bonaporte, who was prompted by Talleyrand, the craftiest diplomatist of the age. Although the reception of Cornwallis at the French Court was marked by more distinction than had ever before been shown in France to an ambassador, his mission was very unsatisfactory. Napoleon adopted the tactics long afterwards called "by Bismarck "dilatory negotiations," and practised by him with much success. Delays were interposed, wra-nglings were incessant, and the conference was protracted for over four months. In the meantime Napoleon was pushing forward his ambitious schemes. In .he meantime Napoleon was pushing forward his ambitious schemes. All the attempts by Cornwallis to hasten the proceedings were futile, and when at last the treaty was signed it was disadvantageous to England, and was little more than a tiuce. Durability should be the main object of a peace conference. It was fairly attained by the historical gatherings of the last century, except that of Amiens, which Napoleon had no intention of keeping longer than suited his purpose. There is reason to hope that the peace concluded in the little New England town will result in permanently good relations between Japan and Russia.