tion Court at The Hague. Of course, the neutralized state was to refrain from offensive hostilities but might take measures for the defense of its neutrality. This proposed plan of the committee of the Interparliamentary Union would remove most of the objections to "self-neutralization," by placing the state by its declaration under the provisions of a general treaty like the Hague Conventions, thus giving the status an international sanction. It was recognized that some large states might be reluctant to sign away absolutely and completely the possibility of intervention. For this reason, it might be necessary to formulate a general convention, the provisions of which should be binding only among the powers which expressly recognized the permanent neutrality in each case. It was agreed that the subject should receive full consideration and if possible be introduced in the programme of the next Hague Conference.

Complete neutralization would withdraw a state from the range of war. The Chinese delegate at the Second Hague Conference who asked what would happen if a state, against which a declaration of war had been made, refused to fight, received no answer. Evidently the task of the state making the declaration and waging offensive war would be easier. Certainly there would be a state of war. Neutralization would, however, if carried to its logical end, take the neutralized state out of the category of states against which war could be made. What has actually been accomplished towards this end, up to the present time, may be seen in the attempts that have been made in the cases of Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxemburg.

From all this, it is clear that the engagement to guarantee the neutrality of a state is not very serviceable unless there is some provision under which or in accordance with which the guarantors can be called upon to fulfil the obligation which they have assumed, or unless the guarantors of their own volition take action, whether under sense of obligation

or from interest. It is also evident that the word "neutralization" has been used loosely, that there is need of definition, and that if there is to be a really neutralized state it must be reasonably secure in its status.

We may conclude that up to the present time neutralization has been based upon policy. The existence of neutralized states has undoubtedly to a degree served as a means for the conservation of European peace; but if neutralization is in the future to produce the desired results, it must become more easily possible and the method of its maintenance must be more clearly established and amply secured. This is evident from the view taken by the powers as to their obligations under the treaties embodying neutralization principles. If, as has been officially stated, these treaties imply only a "moral sanction," there would seem little reason for the discussion and elaborate preparation of their provisions, and the status of the neutralized states would be little changed by the agreements.

A consideration of the prevailing opinion seems to show that the parties to these treaties as to perpetual or permanent neutrality have in the past regarded them as binding only while the provisions of the treaties were in accord with their interests. The writings and statements of diplomats give ample evidence that simple treaty provisions would not bind states to act in opposition to their supposed interests. The representatives of the governments in the meetings of the Interparliamentary Union have accepted this position, and as practical legislators have realized that little should be expected under the treaties now recorded.

The form and content of the present treaties in regard to neutralization may be admirable in themselves and the aspirations expressed in the preambles may be worthy; but if the weight of current political interest or policy is as in the past to be the determining factor in the observance of the stipulations, the value of such treaties will always be problematical. It is evident that if international agreements

such as treaties of neutralization are to have the force which would produce the beneficent results which were anticipated and which are to be desired, there must be a sanction more effective than generally embodied in the treaty provisions. The sanction which Great Britain in 1870 gave to the maintenance of Belgian neutrality by an early intimation that if either France or Germany should violate the neutrality of Belgium, the British forces would join the other for the protection of Belgium, was at that time sufficient, and the area of hostilities was limited.

So long as the moral obligation is the sole sanction for the observance of treaties, those who desire to disregard treaty provisions will find it comparatively simple to advance grounds for their violation. Of course, public opinion and moral obligation may be sufficient to sustain certain treaties at the present time and possibly all treaties at some future time. But with the differing standards, ideas, and ideals of states to-day, other sanctions must be devised. These sanctions must be such as will operate upon states as they are at present constituted, and will probably vary according to the end to be attained by the treaty. The state that invariably observes treaty stipulations would not be limited in its freedom by such penalties as may be devised for failure in its obligations, as the man who has no inclination to steal does not feel the restraint of the law. The duration and method of denunciation of treaties of neutralization should certainly be clear; but above all, if progress towards the goal of making them binding is to be realized, certain and effective sanctions must hereafter be placed behind the conventional phraseology of international agreements.

ENGLISH LITERATURE IN FRANCE

By EMILE LEGOUIS

HE opinion now prevailing in England, and beginning

TH

to spread in America, seems to be, if I am well informed, that, outside of the English-speaking countries themselves, France is as distinctly ahead of other nations in English literary criticism properly so-called, as Germany has long been and still remains in English philology. Such an opinion expressed by judges few of whom have studied in French universities, can only have been formed from the reading of our special books, mainly of the now pretty numerous body of theses printed by our candidates for the degree of "docteur ès-lettres." Only to these for we have no strictly English reviews, no "Anglia," no "Englische Studien"-are the results of our activity consigned; through these only do they spread beyond the lecture-room. The origins of the movement are not to be sought in the distant past. They are co-temporaneous with the revival of our universities. I am old enough to have witnessed its beginnings. I was not only born but had come to the years of discretion when the start was made. Scarcely anything of the kind existed when I was a schoolboy. All honor went to the study of Greek and Latin; modern languages were still but little thought of.

Yet at that very time the elements of change were at work. In my Parisian lycée, I happened to be among the disciples of Alexandre Beljame, the man who led the way with a thesis on "Le public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre au dix-huitième siècle," published one or two years after I left the school. That was in 1881. To be sure, long before that date, great and even memorable work had already been done-I need simply name the world

known "English Literature" of Taine, but in a fitful, sporadic, mostly individual way, and seldom in connection with our universities. But since Beljame's epoch-making book, the writing of theses on English literature has been steady, regular, persevering. And what has already been achieved is only a foretaste of the much more that is preparing. Many are the agrégés d'anglais who now have theses in hand. I dare say that few among the more illustrious English writers, few among the main problems related to English literature, will eventually be without a French university critic.

But why encroach on the future when the present offers sufficient testimonies of our aims and endeavors? From the theses already published, some general characteristics can be inferred. Though numbering only two or three score, they cover a wide range, and though perfectly independent of one another, have in common certain tendencies which it is not impossible to discern and define.

The length of the theses is first to be taken into consideration; they average five hundred rather close octavo pages. Now, books are surely not to be appraised by pounds and inches. I for one have more than once complained of the excessive bulk of certain theses, and regretted that some severe revision should not have made them shorter. Yet their size is as a rule justified by their contents. At any rate, it corresponds to the time spent in their preparation which amounts to many years of assiduous work, between five and ten, and in some cases more than ten. This shows that there is in France a certain number of men willing to give a not inconsiderable part of their lifetimes to the study of a particular question related to English literature-a statement not without its importance.

Of what sort are the subjects commonly chosen? If we waive noteworthy books like Professor Verrier's "Study of English Verse" or A. Léger's "Youth of John Wesley," the latter as strictly historical and the former as mainly con