Italy supported her ally in the ill-starred design of an independent Albania, though public opinion was almost certainly against the action of the Government. For public opinion in Italy recognized the justice of the Serbian claim for a port on the Adriatic, and realized that such an outlet would bring great commercial benefit to Italy.

But while the Italian Government was ready to support Austro-Hungarian policy up to a certain point, a very definite limit was drawn beyond which they would not go. They were willing to help in thwarting Serbian ambitions by the establishment of a puppet principality in Albania. They were willing to back up their ally in demanding that the Montenegrins should be deprived of Scutari, though this action was very unpopular in Italy. But Austria-Hungary pressed her programme too far. In April, 1913, when the fate of Scutari had not yet been decided on by the Powers. Austria-Hungary threatened an occupation of Montenegro. On April 30 the Italian Foreign Minister, the late Marquis di San Giuliano, telegraphed to Signor Tittoni asking his views on the question, suggesting that if Austrian troops attacked Montenegro Italy should disembark an expedition on the Albanian coast, and expressing the opinion that if this

solution did not meet with Austrian approval Italy would be compelled to follow an opposite policy to that of her ally. Signor Tittoni's reply deserves to be quoted in full :

If Austria wishes to occupy Montenegro, wholly or in part, we must go to Durazzo and Vallona, even if she does not consent. In fact, if Austria were to occupy Montenegro she would perform an action which is not necessary to the carrying out of the decisions of the Powers regarding Scutari, and would therefore put herself first of all outside the decisions of the Powers, acting on her own account without sufficient cause, and disturbing the balance in the Adriatic to our disadvantage; for even a temporary occupation disturbs this balance. There is no force in the quibbles to which the Austro-Hungarian and German Ambassadors have recourse regarding the letter of Article VII. in the Treaty of the Triple Alliance. The spirit of that article is clear, and for the rest, any disturbance of equilibrium between Italy and Austria would strike not only at Article VII., but at the whole Treaty of Alliance. The day on which Austria should claim to upset, in any way or to any extent, the equilibrium in the Adriatic, the Triple Alliance would have ceased to exist.

Austria-Hungary refrained from action, but her threats, together with the knowledge that Germany stood behind her, induced the other Powers to acquiesce in the programme which refused to Serbia, Greece, and Montenegro the rewards of their efforts in the west. But the second Balkan War ran a different course from that expected by the Central Empires. In a month Serbia and Greece established their superiority. The result was gall to

Austria-Hungary, and on August 9, the day before the Treaty of Bukarest was signed, she made the shameful proposal that Italy should consent to her attacking Serbia. Italy declined flatly to countenance any such action. The incident was not disclosed till December 5, 1914, when Signor Giolitti related to an astonished Chamber of Deputies the story of the Austrian suggestion and Italy's refusal.

It was now evident to Italy that the Triple Alliance stood on a very uncertain foundation, for Austria-Hungary was plainly bent upon attacking Serbia when opportunity offered. Within a year the chance was provided and the opportunity was seized.

When Austria-Hungary sent her ultimatum to Serbia, Italy took action at once. Besides warmly supporting the British proposal for a conference, and pressing upon Germany the necessity of employing every means to preserve peace, the Marquis di San Giuliano made the Italian position very clear to the two allies of Italy. On July 5 a meeting took place between Signor Salandra, the Marquis di San Giuliano and Herr von Flotow, the German Ambassador, and on the same day the Foreign Minister telegraphed the substance of the conversation to the Duke d'Avarna, the Italian Ambassador in Vienna, in these words:

Salandra and I called the special attention of the Ambassador to the fact that Austria had no right, according to the spirit of the Triple Alliance Treaty, to make such a move as she has made at Belgrade without previous agreement with her allies. Austria, in fact, from the tone in which the Note is conceived and from the demands she makes, demands which are of little effect against the pan-Serb danger, but are profoundly

offensive to Serbia, and indirectly to Russia, has shown clearly that she wishes to provoke a war. We therefore told Flotow that, in consideration of Austria's method of procedure and of the defensive and conservative nature of the Triple Alliance, Italy is under no obligation to help Austria if as a result of this move of hers she should find herself at war with Russia. For in this case any European war whatever will be consequent upon an act of aggression and provocation on the part of Austria.

These were plain words, and when AustriaHungary persisted in her action against Serbia, and proceeded to a declaration of war, the Italian Government definitely took up the position which it maintained throughout the long months of intrigue and uncertainty which followed. Notes were dispatched to Berlin and Vienna, on July 27 and 28 respectively, which raised the question of the cession of Austria's Italian provinces and declared that if Italy did not receive adequate compensation for Austria's disturbance of the Balkan equilibrium, "the Triple Alliance would be irreparably broken."

When the fire lighted on the banks of the Danube leapt east and north and west, Italy was able to hold back from the flames. She had already made her position perfectly clear to the other members of the Triple Alliance. To the world at large it was not possible to be so explicit. The Italian Government made an open declaration of neutrality on August 4 pointing out that the casus foederis, whick would have placed her in the field with Germany and Austria-Hungary, had not arisen. No further step could well be taken, and no further announcement made, until it was known whether her allies would recognize the claim for compensation due under the terms of the alliance. The situation was complicated

by the fact that the Giolitti Government had left the Army in a deplorable condition as regards munitions and equipment. Italy was in no position to take the field, or to back her legitimate demands by the force which, she knew well, was the only argument her allies would recognize. She was forced to wait and prepare.

It has been seen that very early in the crisis Italy raised the question of the Italian provinces of Austria-Hungary, and indicated that it was here she looked for compensation. From that position the Italian Government never receded. There may have been moments of uncertainty as to how far it was possible to go, and by what means it was feasible to assure the "redemption" of the Italian provinces outside the kingdom of Italy, but the aim was fixed. At a private conversation in September, 1914, Signor Salandra declared himself convinced that now was the time to solve the Irredentist problem. In all probability negotiations with Austria-Hungary would have been opened sooner than they actually were if it had not been for the illness and death (October 16) of San Giuliano. San Giuliano had in preparation a Note which was to state the Italian case in detail, and Signor Salandra has told how his sole regret, as he faced death, was that he had not seen the day of Italy's entrance into complete national unity.*

Baron Sonnino came to the Foreign Office in November, and on December 9 he addressed a Note to the Duke d'Avarna for communica

*Speech at the Capitol, June 2, 1915.

tion to Count Berchtold, the then AustroHungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The opening sentences of the Note give the broad foundation of the Italian case:

The actual military advance of Austria-Hungary in Serbia constitutes a fact which must be an object of examination by the Italian and Austro-Hungarian Governments on the basis of the stipulations contained in Article VII. of the Triple Alliance. From this article derives the obligation of the Austro-Hungarian Govern. ment, even in the case of temporary occupations, to come to a previous agreement with Italy and to arrange for compensations. The Imperial and Royal Government ought, therefore, to have approached us and come to an agreement with us before sending its troops across the Serbian frontier.

The Note goes on to recall the AustroHungarian resort to the stipulations of Article VII. during the Libyan War, and points out the prime importance to Italy "of the full integrity and of the political and economic independence of Serbia." No "stable pledge" had been given that Austria-Hungary would not acquire Serbian territory, but apart from this point Article VII. provided for compensation in the event of the Balkan equilibrium being upset otherwise than by territorial acquisitions. Baron Sonnino pressed for an immediate exchange of views and for an early entrance upon definite negotiations. He pointed out that public opinion was increasingly occupied with Italian national aspirations," and suggested that the moment was propitious for coming to an agreement which would remove long-standing causes of friction and illfeeling.

Count Berchtold replied that the AustroHungarian occupation of Serbian territory was "neither permanent nor temporary, but

momentary." This was only the most startling of various quibbles. He refused to admit the precedent of the Libyan War on the ground that Italian operations against European Turkey would have threatened the status quo in the East, whereas Austro-Hungarian action against Serbia was undertaken for purely defensive reasons, to secure the integrity of the Monarchy. Baron Sonnino brushed aside these arguments. He declared that Italy must press the rights assured to her under Article VII., and insisted upon the danger of further delay in accepting the principle of discussion on the basis of the Article. His insistence bore fruit, for Count Berchtold agreed to exchange views on the question of compensation, and accepted the general Italian argument.

At this stage Prince Bülow appears upon the scene. Since his dismissal from office in 1909 the late Imperial Chancellor had lived in Rome. As a last hope the Kaiser now put him in charge of the German Embassy, in place of Herr von Flotow, who took "sick leave." His first interview with Baron Sonnino took place upon December 19, and in the course of conversation he said that the object of his mission was to explain the Italian point of view to Berlin and the German point of view to Rome. He said that he was aware of the Italian proposal to Vienna, and had already expressed the opinion that the Italian contention was justified. He believed that this would have its effect in Vienna.

DUKE D'AVARNA, Italian Ambassador in Vienna.

The mas

But Hungary here intervened. terful Count Tisza obtained the dismissal of the Austrian Foreign Secretary, Count Berchtold, and the appointment of his own nominee, Baron Burian. Baron Burian adopted a much more intransigeant position, and though a former Ambassador, Prince Wedel, was sent from Berlin on a special mission to Vienna, with the object of inducing Austria-Hungary to surrender the Trentino, all the old objections were raised by the new Minister of Foreign Affairs. Meanwhile Prince Bülow was trying to clear the ground at Rome. He began by assuming that the cession of the Trentino would satisfy Italian claims, but Baron Sonnino at once replied that he "did not consider that Italian popular sentiment would be contented with the Trentino alone; that a stable condition of accord between Austria and Italy could not be effected except by the complete elimination of the Irredentist formula Trent and Trieste.'" Prince Bülow seemed to be taken aback. He said that Austria would certainly prefer war to the cession of Trieste (he might have added that Germany shared Austria's preference), and gave it as his opinion that he "could succeed with the Trentino, but not with anything more."

Baron Burian continued to vary his line of argument between а disinclination to accept the Italian point of view at all and the suggestion that Italy should be content

behalf of Vienna, Prince Bülow urged that Italy should formulate her demands, but Baron Sonnino declined to make any proposals until Austria-Hungary should definitely accept the basis of discussion and cease to oppose "objections of principle." The only basis of discussion which Italy would agree to was "the cession of territories actually in possession of the Monarchy." Until Austria-Hungary accepted this demand Baron Sonnino would neither define nor exclude anything-" neither the Trentino, nor Trieste, nor Istria, nor anything else." He had already explained that, in his opinion, discussion regarding territories belonging to other belligerents would compromise Italy's neutral position, as such discussion "would be equivalent to taking part in the contest." He now pressed for an early decision, pointing out that delays might render an agreement more difficult.

Baron Burian continued to fence, bringing up the question of the Italian occupation of the Dodecannesus, which had apparently been settled with Count Berchtold, in May, 1912, and on February 12 Baron Sonnino withdrew the Italian proposal for discussion, and addressed a grave warning to Austria-Hungary. declared that any military action undertaken by Austria-Hungary in the Balkans against

He

[Elliott & Fry.

SIR RENNELL RODD,
British Ambassador in Rome.

either Serbia or Montenegro, without previous agreement with Italy, would be considered an open infringement of Article VII. of the Triple Alliance. He added that a disregard of this declaration would lead to grave consequences, for which the Italian Government henceforward declined all responsibility. Five days later he repeated the warning, and said that his previous communication had "the precise significance of a veto opposed by us on any military action by Austria-Hungary in the Balkans until the conclusion of the agreement for compensation in accordance with Article VII. It is necessary to state very clearly that any other procedure on the part of the Austro-Hungarian Government could only be interpreted by us as an open violation of the terms of the treaty, and as clear evidence of its intention to resume its liberty of action; in which case we should have to regard ourselves as being fully justified in resuming our own liberty of action for the safeguarding of our interests."

This dispatch had a certain special importance apart from its effect upon the course of the long discussion regarding the interpretation of Article VII. Italy's veto assured for Serbia a temporary immunity from attack at a time when there was much talk of a fresh invasion with German assistance.