too easily commanded from either side. The opinion was openly expressed that the only possible route to Salonika lay through the Serbian plain, and the withdrawal from the Sanjak meant simply that the plans of the Austrian General Staff for an eastern advance were definitely based upon war against Serbia. Germany held that the only way of securing her hegemony in the alliance was to prevent the establishment of a real accord between Italy and Austria-Hungary. Count Goluchowski, who, during his last years of office, had striven to establish better relations between Rome and Vienna, was driven from office by German intrigue. Germany was always on the watch against too close a rapprochement between her two allies, and not the least gain to Germany arising out of Aehrenthal's action during the crisis of 1908 lay in the fact that it widened the gulf between Austria-Hungary and Italy.

There were to be other efforts, during the few years that remained before the final break, to improve Austro-Italian relations. It would seem that Aehrenthal had begun to realize, before his death in 1912, that a better understanding with Italy was necessary to the success of his ambition to secure for Austria-Hungary a greater independence of Germany. Perhaps

if he had lived, a different spirit might have animated the alliance. But it is hardly likely. German interests seemed to lie the other way, and German Influence at Vienna was too strong to be resisted. And the history of subsequent events shows that Austrian opinion was in no way ready for the rapprochement with Italy that policy should have dictated.

From 1908 to 1911 the unpopularity of the Triple Alliance increased among Italians. It gave no support to Italian aims in the Mediterranean; it had failed to hold the balance between Italy and Austria in the Balkans ; it seemed to promise nothing for the future save a doubtful immunity from Austrian attack-a doubtful immunity, for the military party in Austria talked openly of a promenade to Milan." Italians began to ask more frequently whether Italian interests might not be better safeguarded by a different partnership, and when the war with Turkey broke out the renewal of the Triple Alliance in 1914 seemed far from being a certainty.

66

When Italy made her descent upon Tripoli in the autumn of 1911, Italians were ready for hostile criticism on the part of their allies. It was widely reported that Germany actually brought forward the question of Tripoli during the Moroccan negotiations, and made the

suggestion that as "compensation" for her recognition of the French position in Morocco she should be granted a free hand in the territories which had long been regarded as an Italian sphere of influence. What is beyond doubt is that Germany was beginning to develop commercial interests in the Tripolitaine at a time when Italian interests were being consistently thwarted by Turkey. The example of Morocco had shown the world how the assertion of commercial interests was the immediate prelude to political claims, and the Italian occupation of Tripoli cut short what was no doubt regarded in Berlin as a promising development of policy.

There was a further reason why Italy's action was unwelcome to Germany. It threatened seriously to compromise her position at Constantinople. German diplomacy had assured the Turk that his interests were best secured by German protection, and that he could count upon German support against the aggression of other Powers. Now for the second time in three years an ally of Germany showed that German protection did not extend very far. Germany was naturally irritated by events which threatened to spoil the German game.

From Austria nothing but hostility was expected. A lack of sympathy for Italian interests was the normal attitude at Vienna; and in this case there was some reason for the cold eye turned upon Italian enterprise. War between Italy and Turkey threatened to hasten, and did actually hasten, events for which Austria was not adequately prepared.

The northern members of the Triple Alliance soon showed their displeasure. The withdrawal of the Duke of the Abruzzi's squadron from the coast of Epirus, after the successful little action at Prevesa, was due to the direct veto of Germany and Austria upon any further operations in those waters. Aehrenthal complained of "the embarrassing situation in which Austria had been placed," and the German Ambassador in London told the Italian Ambassador, Marquis Imperiali, that if Italy continued the operations she would have to Ideal with Austria. The veto was more widely extended. On November 5, 1911, Aehrenthal declared that "Italian action on the Ottoman coasts of European Turkey or the Egean islands could not be permitted either by Austria or Germany, as being contrary to the Treaty of Alliance." This prohibition followed

[Guigoni & Bossi. GENERAL COUNT PORRO, Sub-Chief of General Staff of the Italian Army. upon a report that Italian warships had been using searchlights near Salonika. Two days later, on November 7, Aehrenthal informed the Italian Ambassador at Vienna that he "considered the bombardment of ports in European Turkey, such as Salonika, Kavalla, etc., contrary to Article VII. of the Alliance." A further protest was made by Count Berchtold some months later (April, 1912). He complained that an Italian squadron, when fired on by the forts at the entrance to the Dardanelles, had returned the fire and done some damage. He suggested that if the Italian Government "wished to resume its liberty of action " the Austro-Hungarian Government could do so equally. He declined to admit the right of Italy to make any attack upon Turkey in Europe, and gave an explicit warning that further action might have "serious consequences."

During the first months of the war the expectations that France also would make difficulties were happily disappointed. French opinion showed itself more friendly to Italy than that of any other country. When the greater part of the European Press was publishing grossly distorted versions of events in the Tripolitania, and particularly of the

repression which followed the Arab revolt in the oasis of Tripoli, French newspapers, taken as a whole, printed fair and unbiased accounts of the action of the Italian troops. There was some little friction between French and Italians in Tunis, where the old feud had never died out. Some Italians did not fully appreciate the difficulties which beset the French authorities owing to the effects of the invasion upon the Arabs of Tunisia, and after a time there were murmurs against the trade in " contraband" which was alleged to go on between Tunis and Tripoli. But on the whole it may be said that during the last months of 1911 Italo-French relations were actually improved.

The situation changed with startling suddenness. On January 15, 1912, the French mail steamer Carthage was stopped on her way from Marseilles to Tunis and escorted to Cagliari in Sardinia, on the ground that there was included in her cargo an aeroplane destined for the Turkish Army. Considerable excitement was aroused in France, and three days later the capture of a second steamer, the Manouba, greatly increased the tension. This case was more serious than the first. Signor Tittoni, now Italian Ambassador in Paris, had informed the French Government that a Red Crescent Mission, which was to travel by the Manouba, was believed to include several Turkish officers. It was agreed that Italy should not interfere, but that an investigation should be held by the French authorities in Tunis. Unfortunately, the telegram announcing this agreement arrived too late. cruisers had been under orders to stop the Manouba, and as no countermanding telegram arrived, these orders were carried out. The Manouba incident assumed serious proportions.

Italian

After a period of tension and discussion the disputes were finally referred for settlement to the Hague, where it was decided that Italy had been justified in exercising the right of inspection in the case of both vessels. But Franco-Italian relations had been seriously prejudiced. French action in Tunis was regarded henceforward with extreme suspicion. The old distrust between the two countries was revived, and it seemed as though the patient work of various far-seeing statesmen had been undone. Resentment against Germany and Austria was largely forgotten in the supposed realization that France was still an enemy. The tendency to drift away from the Triple Alliance was abruptly arrested.

This change of feeling was greatly assisted by the fact that for the first time since the unification of Italy Italians were struck with a doubt as to the reality of British friendship. When Italy declared war upon Turkey, and proceeded to the occupation of Tripoli, British comment was generally unfavourable; in the case of some newspapers it was very markedly hostile. The nerves of Great Britain, like those of other countries, were suffering from the strain of the Morocco crisis. War had come very near to Europe in the summer of 1911, and the newspapers, occupied with graver matters, had not followed the development of the Tripoli question. War of any kind was resented by people who had just emerged from the shadow cast by the threat of a European struggle. And British relations with Islam furnished another reason for the marked coolness displayed by British opinion towards the Tripoli enterprise.

British criticism caused disappointment and resentment in Italy, but a better understanding would have been quickly re-established by a fuller consideration of each nation's point of view if the situation had not been prejudiced by the disgraceful calumnies levelled at the Italian Army by a large section of the British Press. Official relations between Great Britain and Italy were happily undisturbed by any friction, but the special value of the friend

MARQUIS IMPERIALI,

The Italian Ambassador to Great Britain, and his wife on the balcony of the Embassy in London.

Uncle of the King of Italy. Appointed "LieutenantGeneral" for the King during His Majesty's absence at the Front.

ship between the two countries had always lain in the fact that it was based on the sympathy of public opinion. This sympathy seemed suddenly broken. Italians felt they had suffered disillusionment. They had expected other treatment at the hands of their traditional friends, though they had counted on neither support nor sympathy from their allies.

Germany was quick to take advantage of the situation. Nor is it likely that Italy showed any reluctance to meet her allies half-way. The rising tide of feeling against the Triple Alliance had not greatly affected the convictions of Italy's political leaders, who still saw in the alliance the best means of preserving peace in Europe and at the same time insuring that Italy's particular interests should not be disregarded. The alliance inspired no enthusiasm. Its drawbacks for Italy were manifest. But it still seemed to serve the interests of peace. The Triple Alliance was renewed for the fourth time on December 7, 1912, eighteen months before the date of expiry, and owing to the alteration in public opinion the renewal was not greatly criticized in Italy.* For a time it seemed as though the alliance was actually more solid than it had been for a decade. Yet recent revelations have made it clear that during the twenty months which elapsed between the renewal of the alliance and the outbreak of the European War Italy

*Although Austro-German diplomacy thus scored a success, its need for haste involved the abandonment of the German intention to amend the terms of the alliance by requiring Italy to assume definite naval as well as military obligations.

AT THE BASE HOSPITAL. Princess Di Bango, assisting with the Red Cross work, with Count Delle Schaglia, President of the Italian Red Cross Society.

was almost unbrokenly engaged in combating the policy of Austria-Hungary. For AustriaHungary was determined to alter, as Italy was determined to maintain, the balance of power in the Balkans. Italy worked for peace; Austria-Hungary seemed bent on war.

Certain provisions of the Triple Alliance were disclosed in 1915 for the first time. The contents of the first article of the alliance were disclosed in a Note sent by Baron Sonnino to Italian representatives abroad, on May 24, 1915, for communication to the Powers. According to this Note Article I pledged the contracting parties to an exchange of ideas regarding all general political and economic questions which might present themselves. "From this it followed," the Note proceeds, "that none of the high contracting parties was free to undertake without previous accord any action whose consequences might give rise, in the case of the others, to any obligation contemplated by the alliance, or touch their most important interests."

Articles III., IV., and VII. were published in an Austro-Hungarian Red Book towards the end of May, 1915. They were as follows:

CLAUSE III.-In case one or two of the high contracting parties, without direct provocation on their part, should be attacked by one or more Great Powers not signatory

of the present Treaty and should become involved in a war with them, the casus foederis would arise simultaneously for all the high contracting parties.

CLAUSE IV.-In case a Great Power not signatory of the present Treaty should threaten the State security of one of the high contracting parties, and in case the threatened party should thereby be compelled to declare war against that Great Power, the two other contracting parties engage themselves to maintain benevolent neutrality towards their ally. Each of them reserves its right, in this case, to take part in the war if it thinks fit in order to make common cause with its ally.

CLAUSE VII.-Austria-Hungary and Italy, who have solely in view the maintenance, as far as possible, of the territorial status quo in the East, engage themselves to use their influence to prevent all territorial changes which might be disadvantageous to the one or the other of the Powers signatory of the present Treaty. To this end they will give reciprocally all information calculated to enlighten each other concerning their own intentions and those of other Powers. Should, however, the case arise that, in the course of events, the maintenance of the status quo in the territory of the Balkans or of the Ottoman coasts and islands in the Adriatic or the Ægean Seas becomes impossible, and that, either in consequence of the action of a third Power or for any other reason, Austria-Hungary or Italy should be obliged to change the status quo for their part by a temporary or permanent occupation, such occupation would only take place after previous agreement between the two Powers, which would have to be based upon the principle of a reciprocal compensation for all territorial or other advantages that either of them might acquire over and above the existing status quo, and would have to satisfy the interests and rightful claims of both parties.

The success of the Balkan allies in the war against Turkey was a heavy blow to AustriaHungary, and through her to Germany. The way to the East was blocked by young and vigorous States bent upon progress, and Serbian aggrandizement threatened to complicate the Slav problem within the Hapsburg dominions. As soon as it became evident that the war would result in an accession of strength and territory to Serbia, AustriaHungary began to move. In November, 1912, she approached Italy with a plan for hampering Serbian development. The fact was revealed by Signor Tittoni in the following words :

Austria-Hungary turned to Italy and requested her adhesion to the Austro-Hungarian programme, which consisted in permitting Serbia her extension of territory on the condition that she should give Austria-Hungary certain guarantees. Italy, in giving her adhesion, declared expressly that she subordinated it to the condition that such guarantees should not constitute a monopoly, to the exclusive profit of Austria-Hungary, and that they should not diminish the independence of Serbia. Austria-Hungary expressed the intention of studying these guarantees and communicating them to us, but she made no subsequent communication, perhaps because she was gradually preparing and substituting for this pacific plan the plan of aggression.*

When the terms of peace between the Balkan Powers and Turkey began to be discussed, Austria-Hungary opposed a direct negative to the Serbian desire for access to the sea.

*Speech at the Trocadéro, Paris, June 24, 1914.