Page images
PDF
EPUB

The lecturer also gave the Germans credit for excelling in the science of optics, having evolved the best and most ingenious periscopes. The reason why the boats had not gained great speed as yet, was explained by the fact that the submersibles had to be built to withstand great pressure and also because they needed two power plants, one for surface operations and the other for underwater work. Twenty knots are now attained and faster submarines may be expected now that one power plant for both overwater and underwater operations is coming into use.

Rheumatism is quite frequent among the sailors of the underwater craft, and in a great many instances the silver fillings in their teeth fall out because of the sulphur fumes that are generally liberated. Explosions are very infrequent nowadays, he said, because of better batteries, ventilation, and the use of crude oil instead of gasoline. The speaker mentioned the loss of the United States Submarine F-4, and said that its loss could be due to any one of a dozen reasons. He stated that if any water should by chance enter the boat the water and the sulphuric acid found in all submarine craft would generate chlorine fumes, which are deadly.

Submersion is accomplished in about three minutes, when about ten years ago it took about half an hour. Lieutenant Miles said that there was no sensation in diving except the common one of slight tilting, stories to the contrary being nothing but imagination. A fallacy believed by many people is that the crew must keep still so as not to disturb the equilibrium. They may move about as freely as sailors on an ordinary steamer, said the lecturer. Air supply can be maintained for about four days, theoretically, and enough food stored for a month's consumption.

Tuesday, April 13

GEORGE MACAULAY TREVELYAN

THE NEAR EASTERN QUESTION

The Club tendered this evening a dinner to George Macaulay Trevelyan, of London, which was well attended by the members. At the head table seated with the guest of the evening were, Vice-Presidents James W. Rollins and W. T. A. Fitzgerald; Hon. Robert Luce; Hon. Calvin Coolidge, President of the Senate; his Honor the Mayor of Boston, James M. Curley; Hon. Edmund Billings; Rustom Rustomjee; Dr. David Snedden; Hon. Josiah Quincy; Dr. Edgar F. Haines, First Lieutenant, U. S. A.; Bernard J. Rothwell; James P. Munroe; Charles L. Burrill; March G. Bennett; and Civic Secretary, Addison L. Winship.

The speech-making which followed the banquet began when VicePresident James W. Rollins called the members to order, and introduced Hon. Robert Luce as toastmaster.

Mr. Luce then introduced Hon. Calvin Coolidge, President of the Massachusetts Senate, who, speaking for the State of Massachusetts, said: "Mr. Toastmaster. Since the old State House that stands at the

head of State Street, which used to be known as King Street, still bears the decoration of the lion and the unicorn, perhaps it is somewhat fitting that some one who has connection with your newer State House should express to your guest this evening something of the gratitude and something of the appreciation, and something of the welcome that you wish extended to him, in behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And though I cannot speak, sir, as a member of this Club; yet, I am sure that I voice the sentiments of all of you in wishing him a most cordial welcome.

"It has not been unusual for men coming from England to turn almost directly to the hospitality that this Club has extended to strangers visiting our shores. I presume there are many of you present who recall the welcome to Alfred Tennyson Dickens when he came here a short time ago, and the welcome which was extended to him by the Commonwealth. We also welcome Mr. Trevelyan here as the representative of a great nation, and as one of a great race with which many of us are affiliated.

"Many of our institutions are similar to British institutions, many of us carry in our veins the blood that the British carry in theirs. It is a pleasure to welcome as a representative of that race, a scholar and a literary man, and a representative of a family that has been known in English literature for many years."

Then followed speeches of welcome and appreciation by Messrs. Snedden, Rustomjee, Quincy, and Lieutenant Haines.

Adjourning to the Auditorium Toastmaster Luce, after describing some of his impressions of the Balkan States, and after citing Macaulay's somewhat gloomy prophecy for the United States, as yet unfulfilled-introduced with felicitous words the speaker of the evening, who had a cordial welcome from the audience of members and their guests.

MR. TREVELYAN

"Mr. Luce and Gentlemen. This is the first time that I have ever addressed an American audience, and I am well aware that the art of lecturing has been carried to a very much higher pitch and is very much more an important and national institution on this side of the Atlantic than it is on the side from which I come, and I am very much afraid that I shall not be up to the standard, especially as I am not essentially the professional lecturer but a writer. Nevertheless, I feel encouraged to-night because I do not think that I could try my apprentice hand under circumstances more encouraging and congenial and, may I say homely, than those under which I will endeavor to adress you to-night. (Applause.)

"For I am not, as an English historian, entirely unfamiliar with the history of New England and I think I know a little, though not nearly as much as some elder members of my family, but I know, at any rate, a little about the history of your country at its two crises, the one from

which it originated and the one from which it survived. So to me this beautiful spring day that I have spent in Boston and in Cambridge has been a day-although it has been a very busy one-very moving to me as I have seen these great historical scenes, of which I have read so often and thought so much. They seemed to me to concentrate themselves around those two places which you can scarcely regard as centres of romance. I mean the Common at Harvard and the Common down here at Boston. I will only say, as an example of the sort of feeling I mean, that when I came around the corner of your street to-day and suddenly and quite unexpectedly found myself in the presence of St. Gaudens' Shaw Monument I felt a thrill quite as great as any which could be felt coming unexpectedly upon some historical monument in Italy. I congratulate your great country in not being in the throes of another great crisis.

"I have been invited by you to speak, not on the central subjects of this war as affecting England and her greatest antagonist, which would be a most improper proceeding on my part over here, but I have been invited to address you on the subject of the near Eastern question. I prefer to call it the near Eastern question rather than the Balkan question, for reasons which will appear; and I think there is a special reason why Americans may be interested to hear a little about the near Eastern question, not only because, probably, you in America, just as we in England know less about the near East than we do about the other parts of Europe but also because, as a matter of fact, Serbia, which is rather the centre of what I am going to talk about to-night, is at this moment, and has been for many months past, the scene of heroic and largely successful action on the part of many American as well as English doctors and nurses in the struggle with mortal wounds, and mortal disease, and your doctors and nurses, like ours, have given up their lives and are now giving up their lives in the endeavor to save the Serbians from the ravages of typhus, and you are still sending out more and more of your men, some of them your very best men, some of them, like Dr. Strong who came from this neighborhood. And you may like, partly for that reason, as well as general interest in anything pertaining to the horrible catastrophe of the European War, to know a little bit more about the near East, and particularly the Serbian question.

"I am afraid it is beyond my capacity to assure you that you should not only hear what I say, but also see this map as clearly as I could wish, but I feel it is quite impossible to make the near Eastern question at all understood, except with the help of a map, and a map of a very peculiar kind, which I have accordingly had made in London from another map drawn by a number of very eminent ethnologists of the Balkan peninsula, a map which the colors indicate not the political divisions, but the racial divisions, so far as they can be represented at all, and I would point out to you that the fundamental aspects of this map, which has the racial divisions represented by the colors, do not correspond to the political divisions represented by the lines.

THE DIVIDED SLAVS

"I wish to speak to you to-night about the problem of Southeastern Europe, which may be best defined as the problem of those races which were at one time subject to the Turk. These races include the Magyar, the Roumanian, the South Slav (Croat and Serb and Slovene), the Bulgarian, the Greek, and the Albanian. The fortunes of these various races are involved one with another by geographical and historical causes, and have to be treated as a single whole. A mistake that has often been made in America and England as elsewhere, is to divide this single problem of the near East into two water-tight compartments, one of which is labelled Balkan States, and the other Austria-Hungary. People in England have interested themselves a little in two of the Balkan States-namely Greece since the time of Byron, and Bulgaria from the time of Gladstone and the Bulgarian atrocities onwards. But we have never interested ourselves enough in Roumania and Serbia, and we have known nothing of the problems of Austria-Hungary, since the time of Kossuth. A year ago, people in England used vaguely to wonder whether the Magyars were Slavs, and whether Austria-Hungary would break up when the Emperor Franz Joseph died. But why it should break up at all, and into how many pieces, they had no idea. Above all, no one seemed to understand the intimate connection of Balkan questions with those of Austria-Hungary. Yet if you glance at this race map you will see the connection at once. While the independent part of the South Slav race that we call Serbia and Montenegro is situated in the Balkan peninsula, the greater part of the South Slav race is found in Austria-Hungary. So too, independent Roumania is one of the four Christian powers of the Balkan peninsula, while three and one-half million Roumanians are in Hungary subject to Magyar rule. In fact the South Slav race and the Roumanian race are each cut in half-onehalf free in the Balkans, and the other half subject to the rule of the Emperor Francis Josef. For this reason it is impossible to disassociate the Balkan and the Austro-Hungarian questions.

THE RUSH OF NATIONALITIES

"What is the historical origin of this state of things? The countries shown on this map, that is to say the Balkans and Hungary, are just those European countries which were at one time submerged beneath the Turkish flood. The high-water mark of that flood was reached at the abortive siege of Vienna by the Turks in 1683. In the generation following that event, the Turkish flood first began to subside in the time of the great Austrian general Prince Eugene, best known to Englishmen as Marlborough's colleague at Blenheim. Largely by the victories of Eugene, the whole of Hungary was delivered from the Ottoman yoke, and modern Austria-Hungary (except Bosnia and Dalmatia) was then formed. It was formed at the expense of the Turk, but it was formed no less at the expense of the future freedom of the

races that Austria then delivered. In delivering them from the Turks the House of Hapsburg made them subject to its own dominion. On the other hand the lands that now constitute independent Serbia and Roumania continued as parts of the Turkish Empire throughout the eighteenth century. At that price they purchased their present national

existence.

"During the eighteenth century the Turks usually held Belgrade as the outpost of decivilization against Europe. And so things remained until in the first years of the nineteenth century, the movement for the emancipation of the Balkan races began with the revolt of Northwest Serbia under the hero Karageorge. A dozen years later, in the time of Byron, the Greeks imitated the Serbians; and in yet another generation in the time of Gladstone and Disraeli, the Bulgarians followed suit. Finally, in 1912, the Turks were driven into a very small corner of Europe by a combination of Bulgarian, Serbian, and Greek. The Roumanians (who had never been so completely enslaved by the Turks as the Balkan peoples south of the Danube), were throughout the nineteenth century consolidating the independence and prosperity of modern Roumania. This work was carried to success by the good King Carol, who died a few months ago.

This nineteenth century work of the liberation of the Balkans from Turkey, differs from Prince Eugene's liberation of Hungary in two important respects. In the first place, the nineteenth century is the era of nationality, ushered in by the French Revolution and the wars of Napoleon. French ideas of liberty profoundly affected the races subject to the Turk. Hence in the nineteenth century we find the Balkan peoples working out their own liberation and forming independent_states on the basis of nationality and democracy-Roumania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece. This is a much more complete work of liberation than the work which Prince Eugene had accomplished under the ancient régime of substituting the Austrian for the Turkish rule in Hungary.

RUSSIA'S AID

"We must also remark another difference between the earlier and the later expulsion of the Turk. Austria had been the instrument of the earlier expulsion; but throughout the nineteenth century Russia was the leader of the Liberationist movement. England sometimes went against the Turk, under Byron and Gladstone, sometimes for him under Palmerston and Disraeli. But Russia has for a hundred years been the steady friend of liberation in the Turkish Empire, and has fought at least three wars in that interest. We have to recognize frankly, as Bright and Gladstone recognized, as Palmerston and Disraeli failed to recognize, that, although Russia is a despotism at home, she has been more ready to go on wars of liberation abroad than any other country in Europe or in America. Roumania, Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria are independent domocracies, and they owe their freedom, first

« PreviousContinue »