CONSERVATIVE PARTY

the conservative, or as it was temporarily named the unionist, party had not, by 1911, fully recovered from the debacle of 1906. for 10 years prior to 1906 the conservatives, in close alliance with the liberal union- ists, had been continuously in power. twice gladstone had attempted to carry a home rule bill for ireland; twice it had been resisted by the conservatives and liberal unionists in parliament, and twice (1886 and 1895) the conservative attitude had been emphatically endorsed by the electorate. in 1903, however, joseph chamberlain raised a new issue by promulgating his policy of tariff reform. tariff reform split the unionist party as home rule, 20 years before, had split the liberal party, and at the general election of 1906 the unionists suffered a crushing reverse, and the liberals came into power, fettered only by the still co-ordinate authority of the house of lords. unsparingly did the lords work their will on radical measures from 1906-10. consequently the king’s speech of 1910 foreshadowed proposals “‘ to secure the undivided authority of the house of commons in finance and its predominance in legisla- lion’; and in april the parliament bill was introduced. this did much to reunite the unionist party, which, ever since 1903, had been hopelessly divided on the fiscal and perhaps on other issues. to the parliament bill, however, the unionists were stoutly and unanimously opposed, but their leaders took part in the conference at which all parties were represented that followed the accession of george v. after this broke down the struggle was renewed. the unionists fought it strenuously, though 795 vainly in the commons, but in the lords the tory peers were divided: the “ hedgers’ led by lord lansdowne favoured an acceptance of the inevitable, the “ ditchers ”’ with lord halsbury at their head preferred the bolder but more perilous policy of compelling mr. asquith to carry out his threat and ask the king to create 500 new peers. the former prevailed and on aug. 10 the lords accepted the parliament bill. in the following november the conservative party was com- pelled, by the resignation of mr. balfour, to elect a new leader. its internal condition had not for months, indeed for years, past been satisfactory. mr. balfour, in a laudable attempt to prevent an open schism between free traders and protectionists, had given the impression of vacillation. he now insisted that he had no longer the vigour to conduct a ministry; that grave questions which might involve another early dissolution were impending, and that he could best serve the interests of the party by hand- ing over the leadership to a younger man. the industrialists and protectionists urged the claims of mr. austen chamberlain; the old tories, the churchmen, and the country folk preferred mr. walter long. ultimately both stood aside in order to secure unanimity, and the choice of the party fell on mr. bonar law. leadership of bonar law.—the choice proved a happy one, though the new jeader’s powers were displayed to much greater advantage in the house of commons than on the platform. his presence was undistinguished and his voice thin, but by his simplicity and modesty, no less than by his considerable intel- lectual gifts, he established a strong hold over those with whom he cameinto contact. lis leadership continued until his resigna- tion of the premiership, after only a few months’ tenure, in 1923. to resume the sequence of events. after the passage of the parliament act in april 1912, mr. asquith introduced a home rule bill. the conservatives fought it in the house of commons, but the third reading was carried by 367 to 257. the lords, how- ever, rejected it by 326 to 69. it met a similar fate in 1913 and 1914, but the parliament act had deprived the lords of the power to prevent it from becoming law. meanwhile, however, ulster was preparing to resist forcible disjunction from the united kingdom, and behind ulster stood the bulk of the unionist party. at the eleventh hour (july 1914) the buckingham palace conference of eight leaders attempted a settlement, though in vain. but by that time the issues of european peace and war were hanging in the balance. party controversies were instantly put aside, and on aug. 2 1914 lord lansdowne and mr. bonar law addressed to mr. asquith an historic letter promising, in the event of war, the whole-hearted support of the conservative party to the government. the war period.—that promise was fulfilled in the letter and the spirit and the whole of the party organisation was diverted to national service. in may t1to15 mr. bonar law and other conservative leaders joined forces with the liberals and labour men in an administration, formed to conduct the war to a suc- cessful issue. but the issue was not yet; victory tarried; public dissatisfaction grew, and in dec. 1916 a political crisis super- vened. mr. asquith announced (dec. 3) the reconstruction of the govt., but ultimately preferred resignation. mr. bonar law was invited to form a government but declined, and chose in- stead to serve as chancellor of the exchequer and leader of the house of commons under mr. lloyd george as premier. a real coalition of the three parties ensued, and was maintained until the conclusion of the armistice (nov. 11 1918). post-war changes.—the long parliament was at last dis- solved (nov. 1918) and mr. lloyd george and mr. bonar law jointly appealed, as leaders of the coalition, to the new and vast electorate created by the reform act of 1918. the country gave them an overwhelming majority and, as spokesmen for the nation, they attended the peace conference at paris. after the conclusion of peace the cohesion between the two wings of the coalition manifestly weakened. a considerable section of the conservative party became increasingly restless under mr. lloyd george’s leadership, and after the concession of dominion home rule to southern ireland (1921), the “ die-hards,”’ as they were termed, decided that when the inevitable appeal to the 700 country came, they would make it as conservatives, sans phrase and under their own leaders. in the early part of 1922 the uneasi- ness of the conservative wing of the coalition was heightened by rumours that the prime minister intended to anticipate, and if possible avert, schism by a premature appeal to the country. matters reached a crisis on oct. 19, when a meeting of con- servative m.p.’s was held at the carlton club, london, under the presidency of mr. chamberlain, the leader of the party in the house of commons. mr. chamberlain definitely refused to break from mr. lloyd george and was supported by lord bal- four, and the majority of his colleagues in the cabinet. the meeting, however, decided by 187 to 87 votes, “ that the con- servative party while willing to co-operate with the liberals, should fight the election as an independent party, with its own leader and with its own programme.” to this result two speeches largely contributed. one was a singularly direct, manly and courageous speech by mr. stanley baldwin; the other was a firm declaration by mr. bonar law, who had been reluctantly persuaded to emerge from retirement and head the revolt against the coalition. but it was a soldiers’ battle; the victory was that of the rank and file who for the last two years had been increasingly suspicious of mr. lloyd george’s policy. the die was now cast. the coalition was smashed; mr. austen chamberlain and the bulk of his cabinet colleagues went into the wilderness; mr. lloyd george resigned, and mr. bonar law became prime minister and the head of a purely conservative ministry, the first since 1905. the electorate showed its confi- dence in the new administration by returning (nov. 1922) 344 conservatives as against 53 asquithian liberals and 61 national (or lloyd george) liberals, and 142 labour-socialist members. the parliament elected in nov. 1922, on the cry of rest and recuperation, was short-lived. mr. bonar law was compelled by illness to resign in may 1923. who was to succeed him? length and distinction of service, great experience, superb intellectual endowments—all pointed to lord curzon of kedles- ton. the king, however, decided that a peer premicr was, under the circumstances, impracticable, and his choice fell on mr. stanley baldwin. the new govt. did not last long. mr. baldwin, convinced that only protection could provide a positive cure for unemploy- ment, asked the country (nov. 1923) to endorse that conviction. at the ensuing general election the country declined. the con- servatives, who at the dissolution numbered 344, returned only 258 strong. the liberals, impelled towards unity by the threat of protection, numbered 159, and the labour-socialists 191. the two latter parties combined to turn out mr. baldwin’s government; the labour party took office on liberal sufferance, but in the early autumn became involved in irretrievable difli- cultics and appealed to the country. the country showed even less liking for socialism than for protection, and mr. baldwin achieved a victory almost national in dimensions. the new par- llament contained nearly 420 conservatives and 151 labour men, while the liberal parties were in the aggregate reduced to 4o. mr. baldwin, rightly interpreting the verdict of the country as a call to the union of all constitutionalists, included in his new ministry not only those unionists who, like mr. austen cham- berlain and lord birkenhead, had gone into temporary exile with mr. lloyd george, but mr. winston churchill, who took office as chancellor of the exchequer. thus the conservative party has regained the position which under lord salisbury and mr. balfour it had for 20 years (1885-1905) ae ed. (see encuisu history.) (j. a. r. m.) constans, jean antoine ernest (1833- sen french statesman (see 6.986), resigned from the embassy at constan- tinople in may 1909 and died april 7 1913. constantine, king of the hellenes (1868-1923), eldest son of george i. (see 11.746) and of the grand duchess olga constantinovna of russia, was born aug. 2 1868 and succeeded to the throne march 18 1913, on the assassination of his father. having received an early private education in athens, on reach- ing the age of 18 the prince was sent to germany, where he at- tended the university of leipzig, served in the guards and constans—constantine studied at the prussian staff college. it was then that the future king met the princess sophia dorothea of hohenzollern, daughter of the emperor frederick, whom he married in 1889. this union was popular in greece because of the superstition that when a constantine and a sophia were upon the throne the empire of byzantium would be restored, and, coupled with the fact that he was appointed a field marshal in the prussian army in 1013, it played a prominent rele in shaping the king’s attitude during the world war. on returning to greece, the crown prince was given various military appointments; in 1897 he took over the command of the army in thessaly, and he was held largely responsible for the disastrous campaign of that year. in 1909 the diadoch con- stantine and his brothers were once more made scapegoats by the military league and they were compelled to resign their commissions. subsequently, on the initiative of veniselos, the royal princes were recalled from their practical exile. thence- forward, acting in co-operation with the french military mission, constantine, now inspector-general of the army, devoted him- self to reforms which were markedly apparent during the balkan wars, and the successes that were then gained completely re-established his prestige. in spite of the victories of the balkan campaigns, various fac- tors influenced the king’s policy in the world war; the future of greece depended largely upon the rele of turkey, and the people, who are not hard fighters by nature, always had leanings towards neutrality. the sovereign was immensely popular; he admired germany, and believect in her efficiency, and he was anxious to stand well with his brother-in-law. beyond the fact that on aug. 7 1914 constantine expressed his personal sym- pathy for the german emperor and advocated a neutrality which would be useful to him, nothing of marked importance, however, happened until early in 1915. but after the entry of turkey, and in connection with the allied attack upon the dar- danelles, the king, probably influenced by his military advisers, vetoed veniselos’ proposal to co-operate with the western powers in exchange for their promises of concessions in asia minor. veniselos resigned (march 1913), but at the subsequent election in june he obtained a large parliamentary majority. by this time, however, the king was ill, the operations at the dardanelles were not going well, and the negotiations with bul- garia having been mishandled by the allies were reaching a critical stage. when veniselos was recalled in aug., therefore, the king had secured increased support for his policy of neu- trality, bulgaria had ordered a general mobilisation in sept. and veniselos was in favour of a loyal interpretation of the greco- serbian frontier agreement made prior to the treaty of bucha- rest in 1913; but when he announced in the chamber that if greek support for serbia brought hellenic troops into contact with the german army they would act in accordance with their honour, the king demanded his immediate resignation upon the plea that in questions of foreign policy he alone was respon- sible. subsequently serbia was left to her fate and a fresh dis- solution of the chamber was ordered. at the elections held in dec. the royalists secured a large majority, principally because the veniselists abstained from voting, and from then until the departure of the king, in june 1917, the government was in the hands of various royalist politicians, who favoured neutrality. j‘or some months the struggle between the king and veniselos continued, but from oct. 1915 the rupture was complete and thenceforward his majesty was more occupied by his relations with the allies than by the internal crisis. there are those who contend that constantine had always been determined to sup- port germany to the utmost of his power, and there are others who suggest that he favoured neutrality as being in the interests of greece. however this may be, the king pursued a policy detrimental to the allies, and this policy gradually became more and more marked. the closing months of 1915 and the earlier part of 1916 passed without any overt signs of hostility, but in may of the latter year fort rupel, which commanded the struma pass into eastern macedonia, was surrendered to the bulgarians and the constantine vi.—constantinople allies demanded the complete demobilisation of the hellenic army, which menaced them in macedonia. five months later -(oct.) the greek fleet (except three vessels) was taken over by the allies, and in nov., the demobilisation having proceeded slowly, a further demand was made for the cession of war mate- rial. this request was not complied with, and, although it would appear that the king had given personal assurances to the french admiral, an allied landing at the piraeus was opposed and the naval contingents, disembarked there on dec. 1, had to be with- drawn after material losses. a month later a further blockade was declared and the removal of the whole greek army to the peloponnesus was insisted on. this was agreed to and a formal apology was made for the events of dec. 1, but it soon became obvious that the allies could not continue to accept a regime dangerous to their whole position at salonika. the final stage in this part of king constantine’s history occurred when the transference of the army had proceeded un- satisfactorily, when the downfall of the tsar (march ror7) had taken place, and when the question of the distribution of the thessalian harvest to the whole of greece and not merely to the royalist section of the community had become a matter of ur- gency. in june, m. jonnart, acting as the high commissioner of the protecting powers, arrived at athens, where, backed up by strong forces, he demanded better guarantees for the safety of the alhed army in macedonia, the more true working of the constitution and the departure of the king. constantine, ac- companied by the queen and the crown prince, sailed from greece on june 12, leaving his son alexander upon the throne; but, whilst it was generally claimed that he had abdicated, the proclamation then issued by the king clearly left open the way for him and for his supporters to contend, as they subsequently contended, that he had no intention of finally renouncing his rights to the throne. constantine spent the following three years of his life in switzerland, where the climate seems to have improved his health. at the end of this period, too, arrange- ments were made for the marriages of the diadoch to princess elizabeth of rumania and of princess helen of greece to prince carol, then crown prince of rumania. as a result of the election of nov. and of the subsequent pleb- iscite, constantine returned to athens at the end of dec. 1920. this event met with almost general approval, but the king was once more placed in a nearly intolerable situation. never recog- nised by great britain and france, he was compelled either to pursue the asiatic policy of his predecessors—and this without the international support which they might have continued to enjoy—or to make himself unpopular by sacrificing gains prom- ised to greece under the already signed treaty of sevres. rightly or wrongly, he adopted the former alternative; he declared him- self in favour of a continuation of the turkish campaign and he failed to condemn, if he never encouraged, the greek objections to the several offers of mediation made by the western powers. the king, accompanied by various members of the royal family, went in person to asia minor, where he was present at the time of the temporary successes of aug. and sept. 1921. but the difficulties of the campaign were too great, the hellenic army was not sufficiently strong to secure a decision and the whole international and local situations were modified by the franco- turkish agreement signed in october. thus, when the royal- ists had placed the hellenic cause in the hands of the great powers and when the king had been back upon the throne for almost exactly 12 months, the close of the year 1921 found the military and diplomatic positions at a serious discount. the opening months of 1922 were occupied with developments bound up with the paris conference held in march and it 3s difh- cult to define whether or not constantine was personally re- sponsible for the delays and complications which hastened on the ultimate disaster of september. the greeks nominally accepted the proposed evacuation of asia minor, but this was not carried out. in july, the hellenic govt. proclaimed its freedom of action and announced a plan for the occupation of constantinople and the greek high commissioner declared that ionia would be autonomous. 707 these events, coupled with a speech made by the british premier on aug. 4, so infuriated the turks that, three wecks later, they initiated the attack which resulted in the recapture of smyrna and in the driving of the greeks out of asia minor. by the last week in sept. an insurrection had broken out in the army, and, at the demand of a revolutionary committee headed by col. gonatas, the king abdicated in favour of his son george. on sept. 30 constantine left athens for palermo, where he died on jan. 11 1923 from haemorrhage of the brain. the revolu- tionary government having refused to allow his remains to be brought to athens, they were transferred to naples, where an impressive funeral service was held in the greek church. thus ended the life of a man whose greatest misfortune was a series of events over which he had but little control and whose want of success constituted his worst sin. bibliography.—demetra vaka, constantine, king and traitor (1918); paxton hibben, constantine i. and the greek people (1920); major g. m. melas, ex-king constantine and the war (1920); william miller, a izistory of the greek people sei eae constantine vi. (1861- ), patriarch of the greek or- thodox church, was born in 1861 at bighi near mudaniya on the asiatic coast of the sea of marmora, his family name being ara- boghlou. after studying at the theological college of halki, he was in 1896 appointed bishop of kirk-kilisse (saranda ekklesiai) in thrace. in 1899 he was nominated metropolitan of trebi- zond, being subsequently transferred first to the see of cyzicus, and then, in 1924, to that of derkos, with residence at therapia. after the death of gregory vii., he was, on dec. 17 1924, elected (ecumenical patriarch. but his patriarchate was brief. on jan. 30 1925 he was expelled from constantinople by the turks, on the ground that, not having been registered as residing at constantinople, he did not come under the category of elablis or those persons exempted from the exchange of populations by the treaty of lausanne. his expulsion at first caused great in- dignation at athens, and he was honourably received at salonika, where he took up his residence; but a compromise was eventually made, by which in may he was induced to resign, and he retired to khalkis. another patriarch, who took the name of basileios, was elected in his stead. constantinople (see 7.3), a city and vilayet of turkey (turkish, istambul). the city, formerly the capital of the turk- ish empire, includes the old city of stambul, the europeanised quarters of pera and galata on the opposite side of the golden horn, suburbs on the golden horn and the bosporus; and on the asiatic side, scutari, suburban towns on the marmara and the princes islands. estimated population 881,000 (1925). constantinople passed through several periods of political and economic disaster, relieved only by very brief periods of normal life and prosperity, during the years rg00 to 1925. four wars following each other in quick succession caused at times a com- plete cessation of trade, the influx of hordes of refugees, demora- lisation in the organisation and regulation of civic life, loss of population and an acute impoverishment of all classes. within this period also constantinople lost, in theory as well as in fact, the position held well-nigh uninterruptedly for 16 centuries— that of the headship of a great empire. war periods —during the balkan wars (1912-3) the city narrowly escaped capture by the bulgarians; the refugees who poured in from thrace taxed the resources of the city to the ut- most, and the loss of european provinces unfavorably affected its trade position. during the world war the city was in a state of complete blockade by sea, subjected to numerous air attacks, and during the last months before the armistice, almost denuded of food, fuel and other necessities of life. the outstanding fea- tures of the period of the occupation by great britain, france and italy (nov. 13 1918-oct. 2 1923) were: a short period in 1919-20 of intense commercial activity and relative prosperity, brought to an abrupt end in 1921 by the combined effects of the war in anatolia and the worldwide trade depression; the out- break in 1919 of the nationalist movement and the greek war; the invasion of the city in 1919 and 1920 by some 100,000 destitute 708 refugees, the bulk of whom were turks (30,000) and russians (65,000); the arrival in the city at intervals, mostly in 1922 and 1923, of over 200,000 greek deportees from anatolia, most of whom were speedily moved on to grecce; the seizure of the machinery of government by the nationalists after the mudaniya armistice in oct. 1922; the flight of the deposed sultan, mehmed vi., on nov. 17 1922; and the formal evacuation of the city by the allies on oct. 2 1923. transfer of the capitai——the vital factor in the fortunes of the city was its relation to the nationalist movement. when in march 10920, the british attempted to suppress the activities of those supporters of the nationalist movement who were still in the city, many were exiled to malta, and thousands of sympathis- ers left for anatolia to assist in the task of hberation. these cir- cumstances brought about a certain moral isolation of constan- tinople from the rest of turkey, and induced a sentiment of hos- tility towards the city on the part of the nationalists, who con- sidered the political leaders who remained and co-operated with the allies as traitors to their cause and the city as the centre and symbol of the old order. the determination on the part of the anatolian leaders that constantinople should no longer exact that tragic tribute of lives and treasure which had repeatedly exhausted their country in the past had no doubt much to do with the decision taken after the evacuation to maintain the seat of national administration at angora. the subordination of constantinople to angora and anatolia was definite and com- plete when, on march 3 1924, the caliph, abdul mejid, was expelled and the city thus deprived of even the shadow of its former sovereignty. the effects of the transfer of the canital are seen tn the de- parture of a part of the large official class and the extreme pov- erty of the remainder; in the absence of the picturesque and im- posing ceremonies of the days of imperial grandeur; and in the down-at-heel condition of the palaces of princes and pashas, many of which have been converted into tobacco factories. re- sentment of the ascendancy of anatolia made the city the centre of the short-lived political opposition on the part of the adherents of the old party of union and progress and of flerce press attacks against the government. with the passage of time the population became more or less resigned to the new situation, and came to understand that the national leaders are not obstinately antago- nistic to the city, but desire its economic wellbeing in the interests of the country at large. modernised constantinople.—the modernisation of the city made remarkable strides in spite of the adverse conditions. in 1912 electric lighting and in 1913 and 1914 the first electric tramways and _tele- phones were introduced. during the war period the municipal organisation and services seriously deteriorated. with the restora- tion of complete turkish control, and particularly under the energetic administration of the prefect, dr. emin bey, a decided change for the better took place. a genuinely effective fire-fighting organisation was created for the first time in the history of the city, periodically devastated throughout its long history by terrible fres; the condition of the streets, which during the occupation were morally and mate- rially in a deplorably unclean state, was improved; 25 km. of new roads were constructed and 250 km. of old roads repaired; the water supply was augmented; the construction of a thoroughly modern sewage system was begun in stambul; a new slaughter house, an ice factory and refrigerating plant, six dispensaries and a hospital were built and placed under municipal management. during 1925 the city budget was increased from £1t'4,000,000 to {t6,500,000. two of the former imperial palaces, yildiz and cheragan, were leased to an italian entrepreneur for conversion into casinos, and it was hoped that their operation would be a source of revenuc to the city. the city remains the educational and cultura! centre of the nation. the national university was installed in the commodious buildings of the old war office. the two normal schools, one for men and one for women, continue to function. since 1923, 40 new secondary and primary schools have been established, making a total in 1926 of 562 schools with 81,865 students. the forcign schools which existed ‘before 1914 are allowed to continue their work, but no new ones may be opened. _ the most striking social changes relate to the status of women, the veil was almost completely discarded during the world war, and in 1925 the european hat began to supplant the traditional “ char- shaf.’”’ men and women mingle freely in the streets and at public gatherings, and the compartments reserved for women in public conveyances have been done away with. the unjversity has opened constantsa—continuation schools all its departments to women. the complete suppression in 1925 of the fez and the adoption of european headgear for men removed one more picturesque and distinctive feature of the life of the city. with the abrogation of the capitulations in 1923 the situation of. the foreign elements radically changed in that they lost all their old rights of extra-territoriality. the results of this subjection to the turkish administration of justice and regime of taxation have not been as calamitous as was predicted by most foreigners. although some regulations are arbitrary and vexatious, life and property are secure. popuiation.—no accurate statistics of the city’s popufation up to 1926 could be obtained. the first scientific census was to be under- taken in 1927. it is estimated that the population fell in 1923 and 1924 to 700,000 as a result of war mortality and the departure of greeks and armenians. no reliable estimates of the christian exodus are available, except in the case of the 70,000 greeks who came to the city after 1918 and who were included in the scope of the agreement for the exchange of populations. it is presumed that altogether some 100,000 greeks and 60,000 armenians have left. in 1925 the population increased by about 100,000, owing to the trans- fer of jarge numbers of turks from greece. although substantial greek, armenian and jewish communities still remain (greek— 175,000; armenian —60,000 to 70,000; jewish—-50,000 to 60,000) the population is much more nearly homogeneous and preponderantly turkish than ever before in the history of the city. trade.—the trade position was seriously undermined by the suc- cession of political cataclysms. during the world war foreign trade was almost complctely extinguished, but in 1919 and 1920 the city performed for a brief period a rele in keeping with its natural situa- tion—that of a port of transit for commodities shipped to russia, rumania and other parts of the black sea littoral. a sudden cessa- tion of buying and an acute fall in prices occurred in 1921, and for three years the city was in the throes of an economic depression so severe that many predicted it would never recover. but very definite improvement was evident in 1924 and in the first months of 1925, and still more substantial progress was made in the latter half of that year. bibliography.—djelal essad, constantinople, de bysance @ stamboul (1909); a. van millingen, bysantine churches tn con- stantinople (1912); j. ebersolt and a. thiers, les mglises de con- stantinople (1913); g. schlumberger, le siege, la prise et le sac de constantinople par les turcs en 1453 (1914); h. g. dwight, con- stantinople, old and new (1915); e. pears, forty years in constan- tinople (1916); c. diehl, dans lorient bysantin (1917); j. ebersolt, constantinople byzantine et les voyageurs du levant (1919); c. r. johnson, constantinople to-day (a social survey of the modern city) (1922); c. diehl, constantinople (1924); george young, constan- tinople (1926). there is no adequate and up-to-date guide book to the city. murray’s izandbook (1900) is still the most se gan hie gy constantsa (see 7.11), the chief port of rumania, is in the dobruja and had in 19014 a population of 27,662, an estimate in 1924 being 65,000. building has been carried on fairly exten- sively since 1g10, but even in 1925 the public services were poor much of the town was in darkness at night in 1924, owing to shortage of electric current, and the water supply from the dan- ube was irregular. the industries are few and small, thougha glass factory was started in 1924; the communications are poor; and the facilities for loading and unloading in the port inadequate, though the main quay, destroyed during the world war, was rebuilt. in 1925 the port provided 28 berths for general cargo and 6 for petroleum ships, with 37 oil reservoirs, connected by pipe-line with the wallachian oil fields. the actual tonnage was rather more in 1925 than in 1913, but the number of ships enter- ing has decreased since the war. much damage was done to constantsa before its evacuation by the rumanians in face of the austro-german advance, and the pipe-lines were destroyed. consumption: sce tuberculosis.