Each war is terminated by a treaty. The main pro visions of a few additional treaties which were not concluded after wars are also given. In but few instances have war treaties been observed, and in several cases they were not worth the paper they were written on. Treaties are signed and ratified by statesmen with out the sanction or approval, and sometimes without the knowledge, of their people. The statesmen enter the council chamber as individuals bent on securing advan tages at other people's expense, and ready by bargain and intrigue to attain their ends. These instruments therefore are expressions of temporary expediency some times exacted after defeat, sometimes the result of compromise and generally inconclusive. If treaties are to become sacred obligations founded on international justice and respected not merely by changing govern ments but by whole nations, the spirit in which they are drawn up and the method by which they are concluded must be radically altered. The existence of secret treaties and engagements has proved to • be one of the gravest dangers to European peace.
There are a large ntunber of conventions which hav been concluded between nations, by which social inter course with regard to such matters as post and telegrap is facilitated, and of late years arbitration treaties between one Power and another have multiplied very rapidly. This is the one advance in which the efforts of diplomacy have borne fruit. The important treaty of Arbitration between Great Britain and the United States is the only one of these treaties mentioned in the list. Agreements with regard to the conduct of war have been made, such as the Geneva Convention of 1864 and T906, and the Hague Declarations of 1899 and i9o7, but they have proved to a large extent futile.
Treaties are generally concluded for an undefined period, and lapse owing to deliberate breach or altered circurn stances. But no people, and it may safely be said no government, was precisely aware which of the innumerable treaties were still in force, and what actually in given circumstances its obligations were.
There may be many instances in which a nation may look back with pride at the victory of its arms and the achievements of its generals. There are but few instances in which a nation can look back with pride at the advan tages gained by treaties of peace and at the achievements of its diplomatists. From the Treaty of Vienna, 1815, to the Treaty of Bukarest, 1913, the record of so-called settle ments is not one to inspire confidence in the efficacy of warfare or in the methods of diplomacy.
After the termination of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 there were great hopes of an era of peace. But two anta gonistic elements existed in Europe which were bound sooner or later to come into open conflict. On the one
hand the French Revolution had engendered in the peoples a spirit of unrest, of discontent, of impatience with the unfettered monarchical system, and at the same time con fidence in their power and hope of success in the destruction of tyranny and arbitrary government. It was in fact the rise of democracy. On the other side the despotic govern ments were ready to co-operate, and, under the guidance of Metternich, endeavour to repress and exterminate the movement for the establishment of constitutional govern ment, and for the expression of nationalist and democratic aspirations. Two waves of revolution passed over Europe in 183o and 1848, and by the middle of the century the reactionaries could no longer hold their own, and many states had been freed from despotism and oppression.
In the latter part of the century, however, as has already been pointed out, fresh causes for war arose in the com petitive ambition of governments for imperial expansion. Wars became more frequent and extended into remote regions of the world which had become accessible. There are forty-seven wars mentioned in these records ; of these thirteen took place before the Crimean War, which is about the middle of the period, and thirty-three after. In twenty-one out of the forty-five wars Great Britain was either directly or indirectly concerned as a belligerent. There were only two wars in which Christian nations were not primarily involved.
It must be remembered that in no country had the peoples any voice in the determination of policy so far as international affairs were concerned. While for brevity's sake the usual phraseology is adopted, and such expressions used as " France decided," " Russia refused," " Italy intended," etc., etc., in no case does the name of the country mean the people or indeed anything more than a monarch and a few statesmen. Although constitutional monarchy became established during the period in many countries, and with it, parliamentary government, the idea of dip lomacy, foreign policy, international engagements, and treaties being under parliamentary supervision and control, had not yet been suggested.
The solution of the vast problem of the avoidance of war in the future, if it rests alone on the wisdom of sove reigns and statesmen, is not likely, judging by the ex perience of the past, to be reached very rapidly. In the meanwhile a careful examination of the events of recent history is a necessary preparation for all who want to dispel the strange but prevalent delusion that force of arms settles international disputes, and this record may be useful as a manual for reference.