Easter. The action of Christ,' he told his hearers, Who has risen on the world which He redeemed, fails not but increases.'

It remains to say a word as to the craftsmanship of the two books. Lord Acton's style, like so much else in his life and work, was, as we say, just manqué; character was there but not finish. Only once, perhaps, did he write a really perfect thing-the fragment of selfportraiture, to which reference has been made. The correspondence, now published, follows, however, the general rule, and derives its merit from its content and not its form. The editorial work is of course competent and painstaking, but also rather stiff and unimaginative. To arrange letters under subject-headings-ecclesiastical, general and so forth-is to miss the vital point that letters are human documents and, like the personalities of which they are the expression, follow a chronological and not a logical rule. One piece of carelessness is hardly excusable in a theologian of Dr Figgis's eminence. 'Infallible' is not a synonym for 'impeccable'; and to say that Acton had no more faith in the infallibility of Councils than in that of Popes' is either to accuse him of gross hypocrisy or else to convict oneself of dangerous carelessness.

Of Lord Morley's execution it is almost impertinent to speak. His style, a little mellowed by time, still holds the field for ease and charm and strength against all living competition. It is largely reminiscent of the Oriel school which, seeking, as he tells us he sought himself, just 'correctness,' achieved a miracle of dignity and grace. If in the age which is being born we are likely to see no more of this kind of writing, we should be the more grateful for a leave-taking so splendid, so worthy of a great tradition, a great epoch, and a great master in letters.

ALGERNON CECIL.

Art. 13.-MODERN DIPLOMACY.

1. A History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe. By D. J. Hill. Three vols. Longmans, 1905-1914.

2. A Guide to Diplomatic Practice. By Sir Ernest Satow, G.C.M.G. Two vols. Longmans, 1917.

3. Termination of War and Treaties of Peace. By Coleman Phillipson, LL.D. Fisher Unwin, 1917.

4. Three Centuries of Treaties of Peace and their Teaching. By Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore. Murray, 1917.

5. Three Peace Congresses of the Nineteenth Century. By C. D. Hazen, W. R. Thayer, R. H. Lord; and Claimants to Constantinople. By A. C. Coolidge. Harvard Univ. Press; Milford, 1917.

THE days in which we live are, in more than one sense, critical. It is a testing time for nations, for individuals, for established institutions, and not least for preconceived ideas. Great traditions, great achievements, even great and acknowledged services will avail little to mitigate the severity of the judgment, except in so far as these things afford a presumption of high efficiency in the present, and of definite promise for the future.

In this general scrutiny the methods and machinery of Diplomacy cannot hope to escape. There is a general disposition to affirm, and in some quarters to believe, that 'Diplomacy,' as hitherto practised and understood, is largely responsible for the great tragedy which for three years or more has filled the world-stage. Whether that grave charge can or cannot be substantiated is a question which need not for the moment be discussed. Other critics, more reflective and better trained, push the responsibility one stage further back. They attribute the present catastrophe less to the conduct of international affairs than to the fact that affairs should be international. The ultimate genesis of the world conflict of to-day is sought, and by some enquirers is found, in the relatively recent development of the existing European polity—a polity based upon the recognition of the rights of a large number of nation-states, entirely independent and nominally coequal. The two attributions, as will be seen presently, are not really so wide. apart. Both may be regarded as slightly academic.

There is, however, another point of more immediate and practical significance. It is safe to assume that the present war and the peace by which it is concluded will mark an exceedingly important epoch in the history of diplomacy. The young democracies, and the more advanced parties in the older democracies, obviously will not be content to leave the ordering of international relations to the high-priests of the diplomatic mysteries. They are determined to control foreign no less than domestic policy. Whether such control is likely to conduce to the maintenance of peace, is a question on which there may legitimately be a difference of opinion. One thing, however, is certain: the leaders of the New Democracy are not likely to be deterred from the attempt by any diffidence as to their competence for the task they essay. It is not denied that they may in the future make mistakes, but in their opinion those mistakes are likely to be fewer, more venial and less disastrous in their consequences, than the blunders perpetrated in the past by trained diplomatists, by crowned heads, and by uncrowned capitalists. Whatever may be thought of these confident anticipations, and of the implied criticism of the existing system, there can be little doubt that an attempt will, in the near future, be made to 'democratise' foreign policy, to devise new machinery for the control of the Chancelleries, and to transfer to elected assemblies, or to committees selected from and immediately responsible to them, functions which have hitherto been deemed to belong to the executive rather than to the legislative side of government. If, however, the attempt is not to issue in disaster, swift and irretrievable, there is one condition precedent, the importance of which will not by any reasonable person be denied: those who essay the task of controlling foreign policy must equip themselves by patient and assiduous study both of the science of Politics and of the art of Diplomacy. It may, indeed, be objected that it is superfluous to acquire the rules of the game, since the new diplomatists do not mean to play the same game or to play it according to the old rules. But they cannot avoid the pitfalls unless they know their location, nor amend rules which they have not mastered. The new school of diplomacy should, therefore, be not less grateful than the old for the initiation of a series of

contributions to International Law and Diplomacy, under the editorial control of Prof. Oppenheim of Cambridge. The first instalment of the new enterprise consists of‘A Guide to Diplomatic Practice,' from the pen of Sir Ernest Satow, himself a diplomatist of high distinction and wide experience.

The literature of the subject, in English, has hitherto been singularly, though characteristically, meagre. France, for reasons easily intelligible, is, on the contrary, exceptionally affluent. There is, for example, nothing in English at all comparable to the series of diplomatic despatches which the French Government has published in a series of admirably edited volumes-' Recueil des Instructions données aux Ambassadeurs et Ministres de France.' The student of English medieval history is indeed fortunate in the possession of the great collection of Chronicles issued under the ægis of the Master of the Rolls. From Roger of Hoveden and Walter of Coventry, for example, you may learn all that anyone can reasonably want to know of the foreign policy of the early Plantagenets. The historian of the 16th century is provided with the 'Calendar of State Papers' to assist his researches into the diplomacy of Henry VII, of Wolsey, or of Queen Elizabeth. No such facilities exist for the study of the 17th century, or the 18th or 19th centuries. The historian of these periods must seek his materials in manuscript either at the Record Office or the Foreign Office, but without a special permit he can obtain access to the Foreign Office Papers only down to 1837, and with a permit only down to 1860, a date, as Prof. Firth has lately argued, quite arbitrarily selected. For the actual texts of 19th-century treaties recourse may be had to the collection of Sir Edward Hertslet, and for the period actually covered (1814-1891) it would be impossible to better that collection. For the rest, there are the stray volumes of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, the annual volumes of British and Foreign State Papers, and the Parliamentary Papers. But the latter lack consecutiveness, and are very carefully edited. At every turn the serious students of English diplomacy are discouraged and baffled, while the people who look up to

*

* Presidential address to the Royal Historical Society.

them are not fed. It is small wonder, therefore, that the governing masses in this country should be less well equipped for the intelligent discussion of questions of foreign policy than most of their continental neighbours, or that, in the circumstances, they should hitherto have betrayed little curiosity as to oversea affairs.

There are, however, indications that this indifference is coming to an end. The outbreak of a great war has stimulated interest in the history and methods of diplomacy as nothing else could have done, with the result that the shelves in our libraries devoted to European History and Diplomacy are rapidly filling up. Among works on this subject recently published there are several, besides Sir E. Satow's book, which seem to demand particular attention-Mr D. J. Hill's History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe,' Mr Coleman Phillipson's 'Termination of War and Treaties of Peace,' and a little volume of essays by competent American historians.

On behalf of Sir E. Satow's work the claim is made by its editor that it is unique with regard to the method of treatment of the subject, as well as the selection of the topics discussed;' and, so far as English literature is concerned, the claim cannot be contested. Its intention and scope are precisely indicated by the title A Guide to Diplomatic Practice.' The first volume may be regarded primarily as a text-book for practical diplomatists. It deals in detail with the machinery of diplomacy; the constitution and functions of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs; the language of diplomatic intercourse and forms of documents; credentials; the selection, position, immunities and classification of diplomatic agents; the reception and termination of a mission, and so forth. The treatment is, however, far less forbidding than such a bare enumeration would suggest. Apart from special chapters devoted to such topics as precedence among states, titles and precedence among sovereigns, maritime honours, and counsels to diplomatists,' the more technical topics are treated with a wealth of historical illustration which renders them hardly less attractive to the historical student than to the budding diplomatist.

This is even more strikingly the case in the second Vol. 229.-No. 454.

૨