Turkey's participation in the struggle. Another point equally relevant to this inquiry is the fact that the Sultan's title to the Caliphate has never been accepted without question by the Arabs, and that his claim to act as the guardian of the Holy Places of Islam has often been disputed by force of arms, as well as of argument, by rival claimants in Arabia. Not very long ago the region of Mecca and Medina (Hejaz) was the theatre of another of these chronic efforts to rid it of Turkish domination. To understand Arab sentiment on the subject it is sufficient to bear in mind that the Ottoman Padishah's claim to the position of the Prophet's 'Successor' (Khalif) is based entirely upon conquest, that it derives no sanction from any Power higher than the power of the sword, and that it is of comparatively recent origin. . Until 1517 the Caliphate was in the hands of the ancient Abbasid House, which held it by right of inheritance-a purely spiritual trust entirely divorced from temporal authority. That year the Sultan Selim the Grim wrested from the Mamluks Egypt, Syria, and the Mecca and Medina districts of Arabia, and compelled the representative of the Abbasids, who lived at Cairo, to make over to him the title of Caliph, and to surrender the sacred heirlooms which had been handed down in his family for centuries. From this it will become obvious on how precarious a foundation rests Turkey's pretension to act as arbiter of the destinies of the Moslem world. The position could only be maintained so long as it could be defended by the same weapon by which it was conquered. Turkey, by her entry on the battlefield, is now imperilling, together with her political existence, her spiritual leadership. It should be our endeavour to profit by her action, and to turn her mental aberration not only to our own strategic advantage but to the permanent benefit of Islam. I venture to urge that the present situation should be clearly visualised in all its bearings at once, and that no time should be lost in deriving all the good that can be derived from it. The situation is favourable in itself; but it is only by vigorous effort that it can be made fruitful.

The Prime Minister, speaking at the Guildhall Banquet the other night, was at pains to assert that whatever

doom might overtake the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Places of Islam would be carefully protected from foreign interference. The statement was timely, and the action which it indicated was in the right direction. But if our Government's plans do not go as yet beyond the negative stage of non-interference with the Hejaz, it is high time that they should do so. We need a positive policy with regard to the Near East; we have needed such a policy for too many years. The moment has come to exchange a hand-to-mouth diplomacy for constructive statesmanship. The materials for such construction are ready to hand. In the Arab-speaking world we have millions of True Believers who resent the Turk's usurpation of the Caliphate, and more than one individual who, adequately supported, could replace him. In addition we have the same millions ready, if properly assisted, to shake off the Turkish yoke-a yoke which, with the spread of European education in Syria and Egypt, they have learnt to despise more even than they hated it formerly. A European Power which would attempt to substitute Christian for Ottoman domination over those populations would be simply playing into the Kaiser's hands. But a Power which would come forth with a programme of Arab independence, backed by the material means for carrying it out, would find its hands strengthened by an enormous accretion of influence throughout the world of Islam. The severance of the connexion between Cyprus and Turkey, and the deliverance of the Cypriots from the millstone of the tribute they hitherto paid the Porte, is one of the good fruits which the Turkish move has already yielded to the British Empire. But it is quite an insignificant boon compared with the benefits, strategic, political, and moral, which the British Empire could reap by utilising that move for the purpose of creating a free Arabia, and thus giving to the call to arms issued from Constantinople a practical interpretation calculated to confound its authors.

G. F. ABBOTT.

Art. 6.-THE ATTITUDE OF ITALY.

PRINCE VON BÜLOW, in a book* which appeared only a few months before the war began, described the Triple Alliance as a conservative league, instituted with the object of preserving the status quo against the ' revolutionary' tendencies characteristic of the foreign policy pursued by most of the other states of Europe. These 'revolutionary' tendencies resolve themselves into two maxims of foreign policy: first, that so far as possible a state should be co-extensive with a nation; secondly, that where this is impossible owing to the incapacity of any nation to govern itself, it should not be divided between two or more dominant States. Ever since the wars of Napoleon spread the doctrines of the Revolution throughout the Continent, all those states on the one hand which accepted the principles of popular government, and on the other hand all those nations which were not co-extensive with a sovereign state, have aspired to put these maxims into practice. The history of the wars of the 19th century is very largely the history of the efforts to achieve this purpose. The cause of nationality has marched from triumph to triumph; and, if Europe is not yet completely reconstructed on national lines, it is due less to the strength of the opposing forces than to the mutual jealousies and conflicting claims of those who share the same ideal, and to the general fear of provoking a conflagration the economic damage of which would be out of proportion to any political advantages obtainable.

In the first part of the 19th century Turkey and Austria were the only two European states definitely opposed to the ideal of Nationalism; but Germany, as soon as she had achieved her own national unity and independence, denied the maxims cited above as universally applicable, as she refused to concede the principle of popular government. Pan-Germanism is imperial than national in aim; and by the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine Germany definitely committed herself to the conservative policy of upholding the status quo against the national aspirations of France. The defensive

* Imperial Germany,' by Prince Bernard von Bülow.

more

alliance made between Germany and Austria in 1879 arose out of the need of mutual assistance against their common and numerous foes. The adherence of Italy to the alliance three years later has never ceased to be criticised both at home and abroad; for Italy is nationalist and democratic nata e sputata; her foreign policy should naturally be more 'revolutionary' than that of almost any other European state. But Italy had need, above all else, of a long peace in order to be able to consolidate her national unity and to achieve the social regeneration of her people. This, among a number of contributing causes, among which were a mistrust and jealousy of France, was the prime cause of Italy allying herself with the central Empires; and, as von Bülow remarks, to desire peace is, in the language of international politics, to desire the status quo.'

In the last quarter of a century the growth of German power gave rise to an inflated ambition to become the most powerful state and empire in the world; at the same time, as regards Austria, the ever-increasing pressure of nationalist claims caused her to contemplate striking at her enemies before they were prepared to strike at her. So the Triple Alliance gradually assumed in regard to the central Empires an aggressive character; and for this reason England descended from her position of splendid isolation and ranged herself against them. Italy continued to remain a member of the Alliance for the same reasons as those for which she entered it, for her attention was more occupied with the Austrian Question' as a possible disturber of the peace of Europe than with the ambitions of Germany. Then came the Balkan wars; and, as soon as it became patent that their results had robbed Austria of her last hope of solving peacefully her most grievous national problem-the Southern Slav question-Germany seized the opportunity of forcing on the conflict which was to decide whether or not her ambitions were to be realised. Thereupon Italy, which had ranged herself with Germany and Austria chiefly in the desire to avoid war, found herself faced with the alternatives of either breaking with her allies or fighting for a cause diametrically opposed to her political principles. The question was not difficult to decide. The balance of material interests at stake was

all in favour of the first alternative; and the undeniable fact that Germany and Austria were the aggressors furnished Italy with a technical as well as with a moral excuse for standing aside. It is one thing, however, to break with one's old allies, another to turn round and make war against them. Nevertheless many people regard Italy's declaration of neutrality as only a step towards joining in the war on the side of the Triple Entente. Whether this will prove to be the case or not only time can show. Meanwhile it will be instructive to examine what Italy is thinking and saying on the matter, and to state what can be gathered from the Press and from a daily intercourse with Italians of all classes.

Just as there are three alternative policies possible, so there are three distinct parties in the country between which the controversy rages. The various parliamentary groups, which more or less correspond to the different bodies of public opinion in the country, have each registered their opinion. On one hand, an alliance between the extreme Clericals and the extreme official Socialists has pronounced in favour of neutrality usque ad finem. The reasons of the former are not Christian charity, but a hope in the righteous chastisement of infidel France and in the triumph of Catholic Austria. It is useless to argue with them that the war against Germany is a war against Nietscheism, the most formidable foe of Christianity, or to plead that the chiefest need of Catholicism in Austria is to be freed from the shackles of State control. The Socialists, for their part, desire peace at any price as a logical consequence of their principles of international solidarity; and it is not unlikely that the negation of patriotism is the bond of union between them and the Clericals, for there are grave suspicions that another and possibly weightier reason why the latter desire Italy to remain neutral, is the sectarian hope that Italy will be excluded from the peace congress, while the Pope will succeed in being represented.

At the opposite extreme is the party which advocates war at any price. It is composed of Futurists, Reform Socialists, Republicans and Nationalists. The Futurists bark louder than they bite; la guerra per noi è la sola igiene del mondo!' The Reform Socialists and