These peoples had heard that a great and potent world-reformer had arisen whose mission it was to redress secular grievances and confer liberty upon oppressed nations, tribes, and tongues, and they sent their envoys to plead before him.  And these wandered about the streets of Paris seeking the intercession of delegates, Ministers, and journalists who might obtain for them admission to the presence of the new Messiah or his apostles.  But all doors were closed to them.  One of the petitioners whose language was vernacular English, as he was about to shake the dust of Paris from his boots, quoting Sydney Smith, remarked:  “They, too, are Pharisees.  They would do the Good Samaritan, but without the oil and twopence.  How has it come to pass that the Jews without an official delegate commanded the support—­the militant support—­of the Supreme Council, which did not hesitate to tyrannize eastern Europe for their sake?”

Involuntarily the student of politics called to mind the report written to Baron Hager[296] by one of his secret agents during the Congress of Vienna:  “Public opinion continues to be unfavorable to the Congress.  On all sides one hears it said that there is no harmony, that they are no longer solicitous about the re-establishment of order and justice, but are bent only on forcing one another’s hands, each one grabbing as much as he can....  It is said that the Congress will end because it must, but that it will leave things more entangled than it found them....  The peoples, who in consequence of the success, the sincerity, and the noble-mindedness of this superb coalition had conceived such esteem for their leaders and such attachment to them, and now perceive how they have forgotten what they solemnly promised—­justice, order, peace founded on the equilibrium and legitimacy of their possessions—­will end by losing their affection and withdrawing their confidence in their principles and their promises.”

Those words, written a hundred and five years ago, might have been penned any day since the month of February, 1919.

The leading motive of the policy pursued by the Supreme Council and embodied in the Treaty was aptly described at the time as the systematic protection of France against Germany.  Hence the creation of the powerful barrier states, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia, Greater Rumania, and Greater Greece.  French nationalists pleaded for further precautions more comprehensive still.  Their contention was that France’s economic, strategic, financial, and territorial welfare being the cornerstone of the future European edifice, every measure proposed at the Conference, whether national or general, should be considered and shaped in accordance with that, and consequently that no possibility should be accorded to Germany of rising again to a commanding position because, if she once recovered her ascendancy in any domain whatsoever, Europe would inevitably be thrust anew into the horrors