THE national aspirations of Italy are before the Peace Conference. To disclose these aspirations, as the whole nation beholds them, and to reveal the clear and simple principles which underlie them, should not be a matter without interest.

A nation is a moral unity which seeks to realize, as far as it may be possible, its material unity-geographic, economic, and political. If the theory of natural frontiers has been carried too far, it is none the less true that only the possession of natural frontiers can render perfect, sure, and definite the historic formation of a nationality. What wars have desolated the earth simply because great plains offer, to divide peoples and states, only the ideal lines traced by the strength of men! Now if there is one country in Europe of which nature has made a perfect geographic unity it is Italy. In all epochs, geographers have seen in the Alps the natural frontiers of that peninsula destined to be the first hearth of civilization in Europe.

It can easily be understood, therefore, how Italy came to include among her war ambitions, the aim of gathering to herself the northern and eastern

VOL. 14-NO. 693

crests of the Alps, that is to say, the frontiers which Augustus had assigned to Italy, but which were held in 1914, by the Austrian Empire. By advancing to that line, and by annexing the Trentino and Istria, Italy would achieve, at one and the same time, both her geographical and her national unity. She would be, in Europe, the almost perfect model of the nation which, should a desire for war seize upon her, must face the greatest difficulties in attacking others, possessing, the while, the best facilities of defense in case she were attacked by others.

It is true that national unity does not everywhere and at all times correspond to geographic unity, above all in Istria little Slavic groups are rooted within the frontiers which Italy considers as her natural boundaries. The populations in this region are SO mingled, that it would be impossible to trace a frontier respecting all races and languages without shattering in an absurd manner all political and administrative unity. The question to be decided, therefore, is this from which one of the two races and languages shall the power which governs Istria take its national character? Can one

have doubts on this point? The Slavs who people Istria are quite in the same situation as are certain European groups who inhabit so many regions and towns of America; that is to say, these Slavs are an immigrant minority who crossed the Alps little by little, and have established themselves in the rural districts and the towns as shepherds, farmers, and workingmen; they have come to fill the gaps made in the ranks of the native-born by wars or epidemics. The ancient race which first peopled this region, built the towns, and organized the State were of Italian stock. Can one refuse a first inhabitant the right of preserving for his country the national character which he has given it, and its geographic and moral unity?

These little Slavic minorities, however, are not the only alien groups to be found within the borders of the kingdom of Italy. In the western Alps are to be found French populations, and in the central Alps, German groups. One and the other are the flotsam of old immigrations or invasions. For more than fifty years, these populations have lived under Italian law and made no complaint. They have their schools, and they have never been made the object of a campaign of forced denationalization. Each family is left free either to keep its native language or choose the Italian tongue, or even to mix unhindered with both nationalities as it may desire. The fortune of the little Slavic groups of Istria will not be dissimilar.

Somewhat outside the question of the geographical boundaries of the peninsula, we find the matter of Fiume which is at this moment exciting Italian opinion in the highest degree. This question thrust itself suddenly upon Europe, indeed, the armistice was scarcely signed. To understand this matter, one must have a clear idea of

the situation in which Fiume had been placed by the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Fiume is an ancient Italian town surrounded by Slavic rural districts, a town which has preserved its Italian character in spite of the presence of a number of Hungarian, Croatian, and German elements in much the same way that New York, in spite of its millions of Europeans, preserves its American character. This town, while under the domination of the Hapsburgs, had been incorporated with Hungary, whose port upon the Adriatic it became. The town was, therefore, subjected to foreign domination. Her situation, however, had certain compensations which rendered it tolerable. Fiume was not only a selfgoverning city rejoicing in certain privileges; it was also the second port of one of the great powers of Europe, and formed part of an empire which held a high cultural rank. For an Italian city, founded and inhabited by a people able to claim the right of the first-born among the civilized peoples of Europe, this compensation had a capital importance. One can thus conceive of Fiume remaining part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, while Trieste passed into the hands of Italy; that is, if in 1918 as in 1859 and 1866, the Hapsburg Empire had managed to save itself by yielding part of its territory. This explains why the Treaty of London did not deal with the case of Fiume.

But the Austro-Hungarian Empire has disappeared, and from its disappearance is born the question of Fiume. If Fiume had been able to stay in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the town could never have been incorporated, without violence and injustice, into that new Slav State which is rising on the ruins of Austria. The old Italian town would lose its rank and its privileges of self-government; it would

pass from one of the great empires and high cultures of Europe to a secondary state, one which will undoubtedly make a brilliant campaign in the field of higher culture, but still has to win its entrance to that domain; the town, unable to rejoin those of its own nationality, would again undergo a foreign domination. For Fiume alone, the world war, which is bringing to so many peoples both liberty and the satisfaction of national aspirations, would appear as a calamity and a disaster. But Fiume cannot accept this fate without becoming a dangerous hotbed of discontent and a permanent cause of discord among the neighboring states.

There remains, moreover, the question of the military security of the Adriatic and the Italian towns and centres of Italian life which flower upon the eastern coast, last vestiges of Venetian colonization, Zara, Spalato, Sebenico, etc. I shall avoid here entering upon those lively discussions which have burst forth in Italy concerning the wisest solution of these two questions. I shall content myself with saying that whatever the solution adopted may be, it will be welcomed by the Italian people if it gives them satisfaction in regard to the two points they cherish most. Italy desires that the eastern coast of the Adriatic, so rich in ports and islands (a famous nest of pirates since classic times), shall not be able to threaten the western coast which is almost defenseless. She desires also that the Italian groups of the eastern coast shall be able to live in peace and freely develop their national life. Italy cannot long tolerate these towns and groups being the object of persecution or a campaign of violent denationalization, even were these attacks disguised.

Such are the foundation stones of the national aspirations of Italy. In order

that they may be recognized, the Italian people look above all to President Wilson's high spirit of justice, and to the warm friendship of France.

By his disinterested impartiality, President Wilson has been able to dominate, in the rôle of judge and arbiter, this terrible tragedy of Europe. We hope, therefore, that he will recognize that in all the questions Italy is looking less to the matter of territorial annexation than to the matter of sustaining and bringing to a triumphant conclusion certain cherished principles. Compared with the terrible sacrifices which we have made, 500,000 dead, 80,000,000,000 spent, our existence disordered for half a century, the territory which Italy claims is but small. Fiume, whose fate is the object of the lively anxiety of the entire nation, is only a pretty little town of 45,000 inhabitants. There is no comparison possible between the territorial gains which Italy will make and those which Serbia will attain. But these territories, small though they be in extent, are symbols to us of certain principles which are vital to the whole worldcomplete emancipation of Italian populations from all foreign domination, the achievement of the moral and geographic unity of the nation, the security of frontiers and seas, the possibility of playing a part in the political system which will assure Europe the peace and liberty of all peoples, both great and small. We have willingly borne all the sacrifices necessary to carry to victory in war these very principles; we hope to rejoice in their triumph as far as justice and the safety of western civilization so require us.

As for France, we hope that she will support our just claims, for a reason based upon principles of more general import than our special interests. The Slavic world has entered, the Teutonic

world will soon enter, the era of revolution. It is easy to foresee that the struggle will be long, serious, complicated, and that its consequences will be endless. Therefore, we must oppose to the convulsions and madness which will convulse the Slavic and Germanic peoples the political and moral firmness of states, in which reason and justice will still hold sway. In Conti

Le Figaro

nental Europe, only France and Italy can accomplish this mission, on which depends, perhaps, the salvation of Europe. Thus the situation of a century ago is reversed. But in order to attain this end, Italy and France must be united, and to be united they must make peace as they made war, in full accord as to their aspirations and their principles.

THE first thing one has to say about Strassburg in contrast with Metz is that it is well fed; and not only well fed, but generally well provided with all the necessities of life, particularly heat and light. I desire to return to this point because I think it has been gravely misunderstood in this country, and it is one upon which I can give personal testimony.

There are, I repeat, three belts in Western Europe; of the rest I know nothing. There is the belt of comparative plenty, which includes Great Britain and much the greater part of France. Here there are hindrances and annoyances and restrictions, but not

want.

Next, there is the battle zone, or, rather, that further part of it, communications to which have been destroyed, and here there is very acute distress. It was not only lack of food, but complete absence, in certain places, of certain kinds of necessary food and lack of sufficient fuel for every purpose. Moreover, the unfortunate people in

habiting this belt have been suffering such conditions for a long while past. They were made to suffer them, of course, long before the areas which the German Government hoped to keep were affected. All their cattle were driven away; all their stocks were looted; all their machinery destroyed; and their sources of fuel deliberately put out of use.

Next, there comes a belt lying well behind the line of the armistice which presents a marked contrast. It is, of course, suffering from far worse restriction than the mass of France or the whole of England. Meat is strictly rationed and insufficient; milk very difficult to obtain; and fats, especially soap, almost absent. But, compared with the hunger belt, it is luxury.

I am talking of something I have seen with my own eyes and experienced in daily expenditure. I may be told that meals can be got in a restaurant although the people are starving. But to that I answer that in a town like Valenciennes you do not find these