FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237  
238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   >>   >|  
ethnographic, geographic and economic unity; our people would, without any doubt, oppose to it an energetic and justified resistance."] At other times during the nineteenth century the Great Powers made amongst themselves and without consulting the Small Powers certain arrangements which affected the latter, although, as Professor Westlake observes,[88] all the States, so far as their sovereignty is concerned, stand equal before the law. But these arbitrary arrangements had always been made in the interest and for the security and well-being of the weaker State, as, for example, when the Congress of Berlin decided on the independence of Roumania and Serbia, in accordance with the will of the people. This beneficent action on the part of the Great Powers infringed none of the principles of international law, whereas the Treaty of London took away from the smaller Power nearly everything of value it possessed and stripped it of the possibility of future greatness; the spoil was presented by the Great Powers to one of themselves. We may concede, as Mr. C. A. H. Bartlett of the New York and United States Federal Bar points out in his closely reasoned monograph[89]--we may concede that belligerents can by way of anticipation allot enemy land among themselves, yet such a compact cannot properly be exercised by them so as to work injustice to another ally who was not a party to the division of territory. From the first it was well understood that the Treaty of London could only be imposed in direct defiance of the wishes of the populations most immediately concerned, so that the Italian Cabinet insisted that the whole transaction should be kept from the knowledge of the Serbian Government. As an illustration of the domineering and extortionate nature of Italy's demands (to which the Entente submitted) one may mention that part of the proposed boundary was traced over the high seas beyond the three-mile limit, which of course was a proposition entirely at variance with international law. We should not forget, says the _Spectator_,[90] the whole Italian record of idealism and liberal thought. And Mr. G. M. Trevelyan, an Italian exponent,[91] remarks that the terms of the Treaty of London were unknown to the people who paraded the streets of Rome impatient for their country to enter the War, and threatening with death the Minister Giolitti who had hitherto succeeded in keeping them out of it. The grandiose bargain which the Gover
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237  
238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Powers

 

Italian

 
Treaty
 

London

 
people
 

international

 
States
 

concede

 
concerned
 

arrangements


Serbian

 
exercised
 

direct

 
knowledge
 
imposed
 

injustice

 

Government

 

properly

 

compact

 

extortionate


domineering
 

illustration

 
transaction
 
wishes
 

populations

 
territory
 

defiance

 

immediately

 

nature

 
insisted

Cabinet
 

division

 
understood
 

unknown

 

paraded

 
streets
 

impatient

 

remarks

 

Trevelyan

 

exponent


country

 

keeping

 

grandiose

 

bargain

 

succeeded

 
hitherto
 

threatening

 

Minister

 

Giolitti

 
thought