No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
Anotion seems to be gaining currency that the methods of diplomacy as now pursued differ in some way from those of what may be called the Victorian period. It has perhaps arisen from the first of President Wilson's Fourteen Points of January 8, 1918, as constituting the only possible programme for giving peace to the world, set forth in these words: “Open covenants of peace openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international undertakings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.” The Fourteen Points were accepted by both Germany and the Allies and Associated Powers of the Entente as “the necessary terms of such an armistice as would fully protect the interest of the peoples involved and ensure to the associated Governments the unrestricted power to safeguard and enforce the details of the peace to which the German Government had agreed”. And it has been rather hastily assumed that this agreement had put an end to the secret diplomacy which hitherto had distorted the policy of the European Allies. A paper read by Sir Maurice Hankey before the British Institute of International Affairs on November 2, 1920, confirmed the view that diplomacy by conference between the principal Ministers of the Powers concerned has to an important extent superseded the old way of conducting international relations through professional diplomatists accredited by the governments concerned, and that this change was brought about by the World War.
page 23 note 1 President Wilson's Note of October 23, 1918 in reply to the German Note of October 20.
page 23 note 2 Subsequently published in the Round Table and as a separate paper by the British Institute of International Affairs, 1921.
page 24 note 1 See the list of Conventions in Art. 282 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.
page 25 note 1 Poischwitz seems to be the correct name of this village.
page 25 note 2 F. de Martens, xiv. 205; B. and F. S. P. I. 134.
page 25 note 3 On April 13 Castlereagh wrote from Paris to Wellington proposing that he should accept the Embassy. The Duke arrived there May 4, and took part in the negotiations for peace. But he left again May 10 for Madrid, with the object of persuading Ferdinand VII to act like a liberal sovereign. He quitted that capital on June 5, but it was not till August 22 that he was able to take up his appointment. In February 1815 he relieved Castlereagh as principal British plenipotentiary at the Congress of Vienna.
page 25 note 4 B. and F. S. P. I. 143; Peace Handbook International Congresses, p. 124; F. de Martens, xiv. 217.
page 25 note 5 This convention is strictly confined to provisions of a military character and contains no stipulation for the payment of a war indemnity, such as was incorrectly inserted in the armistice convention of November 11, 1918 between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany.
page 26 note 1 F. de Martens, xiv. 225.
page 26 note 2 B. and F. S. P. I. 151.
page 26 note 3 Metternich and Stadion signed for Austria, Nesselrode and Razumofski for Russia, Castlereagh, Aberdeen, Cathcart and Hon. Sir Charles Stewart for Great Britain, Hardenberg and Humboldt for Prussia.
page 26 note 4 The other chief plenipotentiaries were Metternich for Austria, Hardenberg for Prussia and Nesselrode for Russia. It appears that they formed themselves into a Conference for settling the clauses of the treaty of peace.
page 26 note 5 Talleyrand's Mémoires, II. 264.
page 26 note 6 And to all such titles as King of Italy, King of Rome, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine and Mediator of the Swiss Confederation. With Louis XVIII it was sufficient to stipulate that the kingdom of France renounced all rights of sovereignty, suzerainty and possession over all territories, towns and places beyond the frontier so designated (Arts. 2 and 3).
page 27 note 1 In a letter of about May 5, Castlereagh forwarded to Liverpool the remainder of the treaty in the rough, having secured the consent of France to the incorporation of the Low Countries in Holland, and the extinguishment of Antwerp as a naval station (Corresp. ix. 10).
page 27 note 2 In the treaty of peace the claim to Les Saintes was dropped. The British would have liked to secure them (Castlereagh, Corresp. IX. 523).
page 28 note 1 At a conference of the plenipotentiaries on May 17 the Prussians presented a bill for 169,785,859 francs, but it found no support from the representatives of the other Powers, and was consigned to oblivion (Oncken, bk. IX. chap. Hi). Castlereagh found the pecuniary claims “a most troublesome concern.” After endless controversy the other plenipotentiaries came into the principle he had recommended from the outset, viz. to clear off all scores in respect of state claims, France engaging to do justice to individuals whose claims rested on contract, in contra-distinction to military spoliation and warfare (Corresp. x. 10).
page 28 note 2 My translation.
page 28 note 3 F. de Martens, III. 170.
page 29 note 1 F. de Martens, III. 168.
page 29 note 2 Webster, “England and the Polish-Saxon Problem at the Congress of Vienna,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3rd Series, VII. 49, and same author, The Congress of Vienna, Oxford University Press, 1919, p. 49.Google Scholar
page 29 note 3 F. de Martens, III. 170.
page 30 note 1 This was drafted in the French legation (Talleyrand, Mémoires, II. 106) and signed by all the plenipotentiaries of the Eight Powers (ibid. 113).
page 30 note 2 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate, document No. 106, of 66th Congress, 1st Session, report by Mr Lansing and Dr James Brown Scott.
page 31 note 1 Reference may also be made to the correspondence published in the Times on the subject of Article 227 of the Treaty of Versailles, in which the writers who opposed the trial of the ex-Kaiser for an offence against international morality had the best of the argument.
page 32 note 1 Schaumann, Actenstücke, Nvo. I.
page 32 note 2 It was concluded for 30 years.
page 33 note 1 Wellington, Suppl. Despp. xi. 137.
page 34 note 1 The Treaty of May 30, 1815 by which the King of Wurtemberg acceded to the alliance of March 25 had expressly stipulated that the plenipotentiaries of Wurtemberg should “be admitted to take part in the arrangements of the future peace in as far as they may concern the interests of his States,” but no such claim was admitted by the Great Powers who controlled the whole negotiation. The latter replied that the actual pourparlers might be regarded as merely preliminary deliberations, in a Note signed by Nesselrode, Castlereagh, Metternich and Humboldt, the last replacing Hardenberg, who was unwell (Gagern, p. 162).
page 35 note 1 Gagern, p. 242.
page 35 note 2 B. and F. S. P. III. 216.
page 36 note 1 Gagern, p. 277, puts September 22 as the date.
page 36 note 2 Wellington, Suppl. Despp. xi. 175.
page 37 note 1 Compare here Documents 8 to 20 in vol. III of Baker's Woodroto Wilson and World Settlement, pp. 67 to 188, containing the various drafts of the Covenant of the. League of Nations.
page 37 note 2 B. and F. S. P. III. 315 and 342.
page 38 note 1 The drafts had been read over at the Conference of November 16, and that of the treaty initialed by all parties (B. and F. S. P. III. 273). Those of the military convention and the agreement for the payment of the indemnity were left with Richelieu in order that some verbal changes might be made, and returned the following day duly initialed, whereupon the plenipotentiaries of the Four Courts appended their initials (Gagern, pp. 397, 403).
page 38 note 2 B. and F. S. P. III. 248.
page 39 note 1 B. and F. S. P. III. 342.
page 39 note 2 B. and F. S. P. v. 179.
page 40 note 1 B. and F. S. P. V. 192.
page 40 note 2 B. and F. S. P. v. 196.
page 40 note 3 This blank is evidently to be filled up with Pozzo's name.
page 40 note 4 Bernhardi says: “this conference of Envoys at Paris became as it were a sort of standing Congress of Ministers, an European authority watching over France.” (Geschichte Russlands, ler Theil, p. 267.)
page 41 note 1 Sbornik, CXII. 429.
page 41 note 2 Also called Uruguay, of which the capital is Montevideo.
page 41 note 3 Suppl. Despp. xi. 735.
page 42 note 1 Sbornik, cxix. 718.
page 42 note 2 ibid. 741.
page 42 note 3 F. de Martens, IV. pt. I, p. 150.
page 43 note 1 The way in which the ceded French territory was to be shared between Holland, Prussia, Austria, Switzerland and Sardinia was laid down in a protocol of November 3, 1815 (B. and F. S. P. III. 235).
page 43 note 2 ibid. 264.
page 43 note 3 B. and F. S. P. I. 296.
page 45 note 1 Sbornik, CII. 711; cxix. 239.
page 45 note 2 Sbornik, cxix. 239.
page 45 note 3 ibid. 521.
page 45 note 4 B. and F. S. P. IV. 33.
page 45 note 5 B. and F. S. P. vi. 24.
page 46 note 1 B. and F. S.P. vi. 57.
page 46 note 2 Reference to B. and F. S. P. VI. 21 to 88, F. de Martens. The Russian memorandum of November 7 printed at p. 66 has, according to F. de Martens, VII. 299, important omissions, especially in which the author, Capo d'Istrias, sought to demonstrate that the motives of Great Britain in urging the abolition of this traffic were tainted by selfishness, commercial greed and a desire to interfere with the commercial operations of other nations.
page 48 note 1 Compare the Covenant of the League of Nations, especially Article X. See Baker's Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement, III. 175.
page 48 note 2 Protocol of November 3, B. and F. S. P. vi. II.
page 49 note 1 B. and F. S. P. vi. 16.
page 49 note 2 F. de Martens, VII. 323.
page 49 note 3 ibid. VII. 317.
page 49 note 4 ibid. 314.
page 49 note 5 ibid. 318.
page 49 note 6 ibid. 311.
page 49 note 7 ibid. 311.
page 49 note 8 ibid. 321; B. and F. S. P. vi. 18.
page 50 note 1 Sbornik, cxix. 717.
page 50 note 2 This is F. de Martens’ account of the matter. At p. 805 of the Wellington Suppl. Despp. XII. there is a long memorandum confidentially communicated to their colleagues by the Russian and French plenipotentiaries, who proposed that the King of Spain should invite Wellington to Madrid to preside over a conference of the resident diplomatists of the Five Powers on this question, and at p.846 is a memorandum of Wellington's commenting on their proposals.
page 50 note 2 F. de Martens, vii. 297.
page 50 note 3 Sometimes spoken of as the Récès de Vienne, or the Acte Final, though in the document itself the word traité is used.
page 53 note 1 B.and F. S. P. III. 193.
page 53 note 2 Dickinson, Documents and Statements, p. 255.
page 53 note 3 President Wilson had been in daily communication with the European governments and caused to be published from day to day his correspondence with Germany (A. Tardieu, La Paix, p. 66).
page 54 note 1 Tardieu, La Paix, pp. 66–81. It is to be observed that the author was absent from France from October 17 to November 20, so that his account is not based on immediate personal knowledge. Perhaps this fact may be connected with the variation in the wording of the Klotz addition which appears in officially printed texts of the XlXth Article.
page 55 note 1 66th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 106, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, p. 300. The record is headed Protocol No. 2, ibid. p. 277, rather an inaccurate designation for what resembles more closely a newspaper report.
page 55 note 2 List of members of commissions, ibid. 309.
page 56 note 1 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, p. 1235.
page 56 note 2 ibid. p. 171.
page 56 note 3 ibid. p. 1240.
page 56 note 4 ibid. p. 270.
page 56 note 5 ibid. p. 314.
page 56 note 6 President Wilson in ibid. p. 521.
page 57 note 1 ibid. p. 537.
page 57 note 2 ibid. p. 555.
page 57 note 3 ibid. p. 8, and compare Part VIII, The Economic Settlements in vol. iii of Baker's Woodrow Wilson and the World Settlement, pp. 319 to 418.
page 57 note 4 ibid. p. 9.
page 57 note 5 ibid. p. 12.
page 57 note 6 Quarterly Review, January, 1921.
page 58 note 1 Thompson, The Peace Conference Day by Day, p. 388.
page 58 note 2 Editor H. W. V. Temperley, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, III. 345.