with power to make decisions under specified conditions; and some agreed means of settling disputes, viz., either occasional or permanently constituted courts. To hold the league together there must be penalties for violation of its agreements, but in international relations these penalties never yet have been enforced by an international standing army.

THE CONFEDERATION OF EUROPE

Of all the earlier alliances and so-called leagues, the only one which bears any resemblance to the League of Nations is that which existed from 1814 to 1823, often loosely described as the Confederation of Europe. It is worthy of study because the circumstances of its origin and development are strikingly similar to those which have given birth to the present League, and the causes of its failure are warnings of the dangers which beset the path of the new League. In 1814 it was the necessity of subduing France and keeping her in leash which drew the rest of Europe into alliance. In 1919, it was the aggressions of Germany which brought about united offensive action against her and her allies, and which was the incentive for the formation of a permanent League. In 1818, France was formally readmitted to the Councils of the Great Powers of Europe, and by 1820 the Confederation began to break up. This happened in spite of the Holy Alliance Act professing the most altruistic purposes. In 1920, provision is already made for the return of Germany to the fold under a Covenant conceived in sincerity and good faith. France was not responsible for the disruption of the Confederation, nor need Germany destroy the League. There were inherent weaknesses in the plans of 1814, and what is more to the point, the European world did not as a whole want a confederation. Have we builded better in 1920, and does the world desire the League sufficiently to make workable the present plan even though it may be imperfect?

The two outstanding figures of this period are Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander I of Russia. The latter, of course, was a pigmy in intellect compared to the former, yet he represents the antithesis of Napoleon's doctrine of conquest and universal dominion. It

was the persistence of his idealism which, after Waterloo, injected into the existing alliances something of morality and justice, and for a brief period gave to Europe some of the aspects of a confederation. Far different would have been the result if the Treaty of Tilsit (1807) between France and Russia had not been broken by Alexander in 1811. Alexander came to the throne in 1801 and Napoleon in 1804. The world was weary with wars which had not been checked by the shifting alliances made in the hope of preserving the Balance of Power. In 1805 we find Russia joined with England, Austria, and Sweden in Pitt's Third Coalition. France, prevented from invading England by the battle of Trafalgar, snatched victory out of defeat by crushing Austria and Russia at Austerlitz, and then in 1806 the Confederation of the Rhine was formed by Napoleon. Russia soon went over to the victorious side, and in 1809 we find her making common cause with France against Austria. But the pendulum swings, and in 1813 we find Russia and Austria both at war with France. In January of that year Alexander crossed into Prussia, proclaiming his mission as the Liberator of Europe, and offering "his assistance to all the peoples which, to-day forced to oppose him, shall abandon the cause of Napoleon and henceforth follow only their own interests." He made a direct appeal to nationality, promising, after the destruction of Napoleon, "to restore to each nation the full and entire enjoyment of its rights and of its institutions; to place all, including ourselves, under the safeguard of a general alliance, in order to guarantee ourselves and to save them from the ambitions of a conqueror." In December the allies invaded France, and on March 1, 1814, the Treaty of Chaumont was signed by Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. Its purposes were the successful prosecution of the war and a collective guarantee of the territorial arrangements to be agreed upon. The alliance was to last twenty years, during which time the four Powers were to concert for mutual protection against attacks by France; to provide "amicable intervention" in such an event; and, if intervention should fail, each was immediately to put 60,000 men in the field. Interpreted in the Phillips: Confederation of Europe, p. 64-65.

light of Alexander's proclamation of 1813, we have here the first step in the formation of a general league under the guidance of the Powers. After the abdication of Napoleon, Alexander entered the French capital, and the first Treaty of Paris was signed (May 30, 1814) by eight Powers: Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, France, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden. The treaty dealt not only with the terms of peace, but with other matters, among which was the regulation of navigation on the Rhine and other navigable rivers which separate or traverse different states.

To the Congress of Vienna were left the details of the new territorial arrangements. Attended by representatives of most of the European states, it purported to be a real European parliament; but it was in fact, as Von Gentz has said, a "collection of negotiators," under the dominance of the Quadruple Alliance, and influenced by the astute diplomacy of Talleyrand. The latter found a hearing for the claims of legitimacy as opposed to Alexander's plea for nationality, and the Final Act of the Conference (June 9, 1815) restored Europe as far as possible to its situation prior to Napoleon's conquests. In the meantime, Napoleon had returned from Elba, and on June 18 he was defeated at Waterloo. In July, Paris was occupied a second time by the allies and Louis XVIII was again seated on the throne. France was in a turmoil, isolated parts of the army holding out for months, and the dismemberment of France was more than probable. Again Alexander entered Paris, and true to his theory that war had not been made against the French people but against Napoleon, he held the forces of disintegration in check. Arrangements were made for joint military occupation and for an informal European executive which received in common all communications from the French. The ministers of the four Powers of the Alliance met daily in the British embassy at Paris and until the withdrawal of the allied armies in 1818 acted as a "Big Four," not unlike a more recent group. The second Treaty of Paris (November 20, 1815) renewed the Treaty of Chaumont and provided for periodic meetings of the four Powers. "To facilitate and to secure the execution of the present Treaty," reads Article VI, "and to consolidate the connections, which at the pres

ent moment so closely unite the four Sovereigns for the happiness of the World, the High Contracting Parties have agreed to renew their Meetings at fixed periods, either under the immediate auspices of the Sovereigns themselves, or by their respective Ministers, for the purpose of consulting upon their common interests, and for the consideration of the measures which at each of those periods shall be considered the most salutary, for the repose and prosperity of Nations, and for the maintenance of the Peace of Europe." Thus was added a new element of organization to the Quadruple Alliance already committed by the Treaty of Chaumont to peaceful and, if necessary, armed intervention. Moreover, the Alliance was no longer directed exclusively against France, but against any disturber of the peace. If we add to these arrangements a parallel agreement made two months earlier, we have the full text of the League covenant of that time, under which four conferences were held. This earlier agreement is the famous Act of the Holy Alliance."

For the origin of this Act we must go back to the year 1804, shortly after Napoleon became emperor. Alexander, under the guidance of La Harpe, had read the project of Saint-Pierre and the criticism of it by Rousseau. The latter's objection to the French monk's plan was that it would require a Henry IV to carry it out. Why should not Alexander play the part of Henry IV? Why should he not free the world from fear of France as Henry had planned to free Europe from the menace of Austria? Why should he not then set up a league by which the sacred rights of humanity would be secured? He put his idea on paper in instructions to his minister Novosiltsov, whom he sent on a special mission on September 11, 1804, to lay the plan before Pitt. England and Russia could unite, he said, only if the countries to be freed from Napoleon were to remain free from the old abuses. Justice and humanity must be regarded; national rights must be respected; Poland, Sardinia, and Switzerland must be restored, and Holland made independent; the French people must be shown that the war was not against them but against the Corsican; and Christian peoples

'British and Foreign State Papers, 3:279.

"For the text of this Act see Appendix 4.

must be freed from the yoke of the Turk. Pitt's reply was cold to the idealism of Alexander, but receptive of a plan of union to secure sovereign rights, to establish a system of public law in Europe, and first of all to subdue France. Napoleon kept the subsequent allies busy until 1815 pursuing this last project. When that was accomplished, Alexander again put forth his dream. This time he carried with him every Christian sovereign of Europe except the Pope, even Great Britain, though still true to her policy of "splendid isolation," assenting in principle. The act was signed by Russia, Austria, and Prussia on September 14, 1815, and was announced by Alexander at a review of allied troops near Châlons on September 26, when all Christian nations were invited to join. The form and religious sentiments of the document were due to the acquaintance of Alexander with Baroness von Krüdener, a religious enthusiast whom he brought with him to Paris, and who conducted nightly prayer-meetings in a building adjoining Alexander's house. In the name of the Most High and Indivisible Trinity, the three monarchs based their agreement on "the sublime truths which the holy religion of our Saviour teaches." They agreed to act toward each other as brothers, to regard themselves as fathers of their subjects, to consider themselves as three members of one Christian nation under the Sovereign God; and to receive into the Holy Alliance all powers which would avow the sacred principles to which they were bound. It was a strange treaty, unique in history; but if we translate it into modern terms of diplomatic intercourse, we find it to be a general treaty of amity, seeking international coöperation. It was fundamentally sound, for no league, either then or now, can survive without the spirit of coöperation in international affairs. We have every reason to believe that Alexander was sincere in urging this treaty upon Europe, and it is not accurate to characterize it at the outset as a reactionary movement intended merely to maintain reigning sovereigns on their thrones and to preserve their territories intact. On the contrary, assuming that these existing governments had been made safe by the Treaties of Chaumont and Paris, it placed a duty on their chiefs to govern wisely and deal fairly with their neighbors. It is the irony of fate that