A A 2 8 4 4 9 ; 7 : !aliforni; gional Jility 2£>^ THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE PRESENT WAR BY JAMES BRYCE (VISCOUNT BRYCE) hot oj " Th4 Holy Roman Empire," " Tit ' tic. Formerly Ambassador to the United States. MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 1916 Price One Penny. I IU UiNT . .; : n ofiXIA SA . I • RBARA THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN IX THE PRESENT WAR. We in Britain who respect and value the opinion of the free neutral peoples of Europe and America cannot hut desire that those peoples should be duly informed of the way in which \w regard the circumstances and possible results of the present conflict. I have written wh;it follows in compliance with a request from the Editor of a Leading journal in one of those free countries, Switzerland, bul what lias heen set down to be read by its people may equally well be addressed to other neut rals. I speak in these pages with no more authority than is possessed by any private citizen of my country who lias had a loner experience of public affairs, and T desire only to express what 1 believe to he its aeral sentiments. other writers would doubtle tvey those sentiments in somewhal different language, bul I think they would do i to much the Bame general effect, for the British Nation is at this crisis nnited in its views and purp to an extent almost unpre oedented in our histor f li.ill nol enter into the circumstances which brought about the w&t for these have been often Z THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN stated officially and can be readily understood from documents already published. The evi- dence contained in those documents appears to me to be quite convincing to any impartial mind. All that need be said here is that the British nation did most assuredly neither desire nor contemplate war. There was no hostility to Germany except among a very few persons who thought she was already planning to attack us. The notion which has been assiduously propa- gated by the German Government, that England desired to bring about war because she feared the commercial competition of Germany and hoped to destroy German productive industry and mercantile prosperity, is absolutely untrue and without the slightest foundation. It is indeed an absurd suggestion, for every man of sense knew that German trade had brought more advantage to our trading classes than any damage German competition had been doing to them. England had far more to lose than to gain by war. Germany was her best foreign customer, taking more goods from ner than did any other foreign country. It was evident that a war would involve England in pecuniary losses which must far exceed, and have already far exceeded, any pecuniary gain her traders could possibly have made by the crippling of German trade for many a year to come. One of the reasons why many English- IN THE PRESENT WAR. 6 men thought that there was no likelihood of a war between the two countries was because they believed that both countries knew what frightful losses to each the war would bring. Moreover, the fact that England had not prepared herself for a land war shows how little she expected it. e had an army very small in comparison with those of the Continental powers, and no store of guns or shell comparable to theirs; so, when the war broke out, she found herself suddenly obliged to raise a large force by voluntary en- listment at short notice. Few supposed that the response of the people would have been so general and so hearty. The response came because the nation was united as it had never been united before in support of any war. That which united it was the invasion of Belgium; and that which has done most to keep it united and to stimulate it to exertions hitherto un- dreamt of has been popular indignation at the methods by which the German Government ha-' conduct I'd hostilities by land and by sea. The German Government has alleged that the Britisl ! leet had hern mobilised with a viev to war-. Thai is absolutely untrue. What hap pened was this. The Fleet had been going through it usual summer manoeuvres. Aus\ as i hese i m .- 1 r i m • 1 1 \ res v ere coming i<> an end, a threateni] c cloud unexpectedly arose out of a blur Mo I natural!;, , the ships which 4 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN would in the usual course have been dispersed to their accustomed peace stations were com- manded not to disperse until further orders were received. There was in this no evidence of any purpose to embark in war, for to keep the Fleet together was in the circumstances the obvious course. Now let me try to state what are the prin- ciples which animate the British people, making them believe thev have a righteous cause, and inducing them, because they so believe, to prose- cute the war with their utmost energy. There is a familiar expression which we use in England to sum up the position and aims of a nation. It is '' What does the nation ' stand for ' ? ' What are the principles and the interests which prescribe its course? What are the ends, over and above its own welfare, which it seeks to promote ? What is the nature of the mission with which it feels itself charged? What are the ideals which it would like to see prevailing throughout the world ? There are five of these principles or aims or ideals which I will here set forth, because they stand out conspicuously in the present crisis, though they are all more or less parts of the settled policy of Britain. I. The first of these five is Liberty. England and Switzerland have been the two modern countries in which Liberty first took tangible form in laws and institutions. Holland IN THli PRESENT WAR. O followed, ami the three peoples of the Scan- dinavian North, kindred to us in blood, have followed likewise. In England Liberty appeared from early da ys in a recognition of the right of the citizen to be protected against arbitrary power and to bear his share in the work of governing his ow n community. It is from Great Britain that other European countries whose political condition had, from the end of the middle ages down to the end of the eighteenth century, been un- favourable to freedom, drew, in that and the fol- lowing century, their examples of a Government which could be united and efficient and yet popular, strong to defend itself against attack, and yet respectful of the rights of its own mem- bers. The British Constitution has been the model whence most of the countries that have within recent tunes adopted constitutional Government have drawn their institutions. Britain has herself during the last eighty years made her constitution more and more truly popular. It is now as democratic as that of any other Kuropean country, and in their deal- ing- with <»ther countries, the British people have shows a constant sympathy with freedom. I hey showed it early in the nineteenth century to Spanish constitutional reformers and to Greek insurgents againsl Turkish tyranny. Thej showed it to Switzerland when they foiled 6 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN (in 1847) the attempt of Metternich to interfere with her independence. They have shown it markedly within recent years. Britain has given free Governments to all those of her Colonies in which there is a population of European origin capable of using them, and this has confirmed the attachment to herself of those Colonies. Only seven years ago, after a war with the two Dutch Republics of South Africa which ended by a treaty making them parts of the British dominions, she restored self-government to the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and they soon afterwards became members of the new auto- nomous Confederation called the Union of South Africa, side by side with the old British Colonies of the Cape and Natal. The first Prime Minister of that Union was General Louis Botha, who had been Com- mander-in-Chief of the Boer Forces in their war • with Britain. What has been the result? When the present war broke out, the German Government, which had long been planning to induce the Transvaal and the Orange Free State to break away from Britain, found to their astonishment that the vast majority of the South , African Boers stood heartily by her. General Botha took command of the Union armies, and defeated the German forces in the German Colony of South West Africa with- out any assistance from British troops. IN THE PRESENT WAR. 7 There had lone been troubles and eontrover- l sies connected with the state of Ireland, for although she was fully represented in the British Parliament, the majority of the popu- lation expressed a desire, which excited much opposition, to have autonomous institutions granted to them. It had been found hard to find an acceptable solution of this question, eh icily because a considerable element in the Irish population did not wish for those insti- tutions. But the question was settled in 1914 by the passing of an Act giving to Ireland (subject to certain safeguards and provisions not yet settled in detail) a local Parliament a satisfaction to national sentiment and to the desire of a majority for that kind of autonomy which they had asked for through their representatives in Parliament. There, ajain, what has been the result \ Ireland, on whose disaffection to the United Kingdom the German Government had been counting, lias shown herself when the war broke out to thoroughly 'oval. Protestants and Roman itholics have Tied with one another in volun- teering into flic new armies which l!;i\<' been raised during the las! twelve months. Some of the nm>~i powerful peeches made iii defence of tli. come from the leaders of flic I rish V;t iona Some of i In- lines! deed • of \ alour bave been done by [rish regiments. These arc 8 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN the fruits of Liberty as Britain has understood it and practised it. II. Britain stands for the principle of Nationality. She has always given her sym- pathy to the efforts of a people restless under a foreign dominion to deliver themselves from the stranger and to be ruled by a Government of their own. The efforts of Greece from 1820 till her liberation from the Turks, the efforts of Italy to shake off the hated yoke of Austria and attain national unity under an Italian King, found their warmest support in England. English Liberals gave their sympathy to national movements in Hungary and Poland. They gave that sympathy also to the German movement for national unity from 1848 to 1870, for in those days that movement was led by German Liberals of lofty aims who did not desire, as the recent rulers of Germany have desired, to make their national strength a menace to the peace and security of their neigh- bours. In India, England has long ceased to absorb into her dominions the native States, and has been seeking only to guide the rulers of those States into the paths of just and humane admin- istration, while leaving their internal affairs to their own native Governments. Representa- tive institutions like those of England herself cannot be extended to the numerous races that compose the Indian population, because they are I\ THE PRESENT WAR. 9 Hot yet fit for such institutions. A firm and im- partial hand is indeed mvded to keep the peace among them. But the British Government in India regards, and has long r< garded, its power as a trust to be used for the benefit of the people and in recent years efforts have been made to associate the people more and more with the work of the higher branches of administration and legislation. Native judges sit beside Euro pean judges in the highest Courts, while the vast mas- of local administration is conducted. by native officials and native judges. No tri- bute or revenue of any kind is drawn by England from India <>r from any of those Colonies which the Heme Government controls. The happy suite of this policy have been seen in the steady increase of the < mifidence and goodwill of the Dative rulers and aristocracy of India to British Government, so that when the present war broke out all those rulers at once offered military aid. Large Indian forces gladlj came to fight, and foughl most gallantly, side t he Din ish forces in I ram e I do no! claim thai these successes attained British ideas and methods are due to any innate and peculiar meril of British character. 'I hey may he largely ascribed to the fact that the insular position and the political and social conditions of England enabled her earlier than most other peoples, both to attain constitutional liberty and t<. learn to love n and trust it. She 10 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN has had long experience and has profited by experience. She has had cause to see how much better it is to govern by justice and in a fair and generous spirit than to rely entirely on brute force. Once in her history, 140 years ago, she lost the North American Colonies because, in days when British freedom was less firmly established than it is now, a narrow-minded and obstinate King induced his Government to treat those Colonies with unwise harshness. She has never forgotten that lesson, and has more and more come to see that freedom and nationality are a surer basis for contentment and loyalty than is the application of force. Compare with the happy results that have followed the in- stances I have mentioned of respect for liberty and national sentiment in the cases of South Africa and Ireland and India, as well as in the self-governing Colonies, the results in North Sleswig, in Posen, in Alsace-Lorraine, of the opposite policy of force sternly applied by Prussian statesmen and soldiers. III. England stands for the maintenance of treaty obligations and of those rights of the smaller nations which rest upon such obliga- tions. The circumstances of the present war, which saw Belgium suddenly attacked by a Power that had itself solemnly guaranteed the neutrality of Belgian territory, summoned Eng- land to stand up for the defence of those rights IN THE PRESENT WAR. 11 and obligations. Her people feel that the good faith of treaties is the only foundation on which peace between nations can rest, and, especially, is the only guarantee for the security of those which do not maintain large armies. We recog- nise the value of the smaller states, knowing what they have done for the progress of mankind, grateful for the examples set by many of them of national heroism and of achievements in science, literature and art. So far from desir- ing to see the smaller peoples absorbed into the larger, as German theorists appear to wish, we believe that the world would profit if there were in it a greater number of small peoples, each developing its own type of character and its own forms of thought and art. Both these principles — the observance of treaties and the rights of the smaller neutral States — have been raised in the sharpest form - the unprovoked invasion of Belgium only two days after the German Minister at Brussels had lulled the uneasiness of the Belgian < i-overn- nient by his pacific assurances. Such conduct b threat to every neutral nation Tl which befell Belgium might have befallen . land or I [olland had ( rermany decid .it it wa her interests to attack either of them for the curing a pa i for 1 annii agland wa ed to come to Belgium's support and fulfil the obligation she 12 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN had herself contracted to defend the neutrality of the country unrighteously attacked. It would be superfluous to say, if the German Govern- ment had not endeavoured to deceive its own subjects and other nations by a gross misrepre- sentation of the facts, that England never had the least intention of entering Belgium, except to protect it should its territory be violated. The conversations which took place between British officers and Belgian authorities some time beforehand, referred, as the published text clearly proves, only to the case of an invasion of Belgium by Germany, and were intended merely to provide for that contingency, which was deemed possible, though we hoped that it never would arise. The charge made by the German Government that England had planned with Belgian Ministers to attack Germany through Belgium is therefore absolutely baseless. When the German armies suddenly crossed the Bel- gian frontier, carrying slaughter and destruc- tion in their train, an issue of transcendent importance was raised. Can treaties be violated with impunity? Is a nation which, trusting to the protection of international justice and treaty obligations, has not so armed itself as to be able to repel invasion, obliged helplessly to submit to see its territory overrun and its towns destroyed ? If such violence prevails, what sense of security can any small nation enjoy ? Will it IN THE PRESENT WAR. 13 rot be the helpless prey of some stronger Power, whenever that Power finds an interest in pounc- ing upon it ! What becomes of the whole fabric of international law and international justice? This issue was plainly stated by the Chancellor of the German Empire when he said in the Reichstag that the entrance of German troops upon Belgian soil was " contrary tothe rules of international law," and spoke of 'the wrong that we art 1 committing.' 3 Belgium was bound by honour to resist invasion, because she had solemnly pledged herself to the other Powers to maintain neutrality. It was the condition of her creation and her existence. And England, obliged by honour to succour Belgium, has thus become the champion of international right and "i' the security of tin 1 -mailer nations. There is Qothing she more earnestly desires to obtain as i result of this war than that the smaller States should be placed for the future in a position of ifety, in which the guarantees for their inde- pendence and peace slmll be stronger than before, because I he sanction of the law of nat ions v. ill have breii made more effed ive. I V. England stands for the regulat ion of the methods of warfare in i he interests of humanity, and especially \'<>v the exempt lod of Hon com batants from the Bufferings and horrors which war brings. I [ere i another issue raised by the present crisis, anothei conflict of opposing 14 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN principles. In the ancient world, and among semi-civilised peoples in more recent times, non- combatant civilians as well as the fighting forces had to bear those sufferings. The men were killed, combatants and non-combatants alike; the women and children, if spared, were reduced to slavery. That is what the Turkish Govern- ment — I say " the Government " because some good Muslims disapprove — have been doing during the last few months in Asia Minor and Armenia, on a far larger scale than even the massacres perpetrated by Abdul Hamid in 1895-6. They are doing it systematically. They are slaughtering the men, they are en- slaving some of the women by selling them in open market or seizing them for the harem, and driving the rest, with the children, out into deserts to perish from hunger. In Trebizond, a few months ago, they seized most of the Armenian population of the city, of both sexes, put them into sailing vessels, carried them out to sea, and drowned them all. They are deliberately exterminating the whole Chris- tian population, and avow this to be their policy, although the Christians had not risen against them or given any offence. The Turkish Government is, of course, a thoroughly bar- barous Government. But in civilised Europe Christian nations have during the last few cen- turies softened the conduct of war by agreeing IN THE PRESENT WAR. 15 to respect the lives and property of innocent non-combatants, and thus, although the scale of modern wars has been greater, less misery has been inflicted on inhabitants of invaded territories. Their sufferings were less in the 18th century than in the 17th, and less in the 19th than in the 18th. In the war of 1870-71 the German troops behaved better in France than an invading force had usually behaved in similar circumstances. Now, however, in this, present war, the German military and naval commanders have taken a long step back- wards towards barbarism. Innocent non- combatants have been slaughtered by thousands in Belgium and in France, and the only • use offered (for the facts of the slaughter are practically admitted) is that German troops have sometimes been fired at by civilians. Now it is true that any civili;m who takes up arms without observing the rules prescribed for civilian resistance is Liable to] t. The nil of wiir permit that. But it is contrary to the ml . as well as to common justice and humanity, to kill a civilian who has not himself eight i<> harm an Invading foro The fad that -nine other civilian belonging t<> the Bame Mi may have fired on the invaders does not justify the killing of an innocent person. To ent inhabitants, call them " host for I he d behai iour of their tow n. 16 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN and shoot them if the invaders are molested by persons whose actions these so-called ' host- ages " cannot control, is murder and nothing else. Yet this is what the German commanders have done upon a great scale. German air-war has been conducted with equal inhumanity. Bombs are being dropped upon undefended towns and quiet country villages, in places where there are no troops, no Avar factories, no stores of ammunition. Hardly a combatant has suffered, and the women and children killed have been far more numerous than the male non-combatants. No military advantage has been gained by these crimes. They have not even frightened the people generally. They have only aroused indignation at their purposeless cruelty, and this indigna- tion has in England stimulated recruiting and strengthened the determination to pursue the war to the end. The killing of non-combatants by this sort of warfare has been a blunder as well as a crime. The same retrogression towards barbarism is seen in the German conduct of war at sea. It had long been the rule and practice of civilised nations that when a merchant vessel is destroyed by a ship of war because it is impossible to carry the merchant vessel into the port of the captor, the crew and the passengers of the vessel should be taken off and their lives saved, before the IX Tie PRESEN1 WAR. 17 vessel is sunk. Common humanity prescribes this, but the German submarines have been sink- ing unarmed merchant vessels and drowning their passengers and crews \\ ithout giving them even the opportunity to surrender. They did this m the case of the Lusitania, drowning 1,100 Innocent non-combatants, man} of them citizens of neutral States, and they have since repeatedly perpetrated the same crime. The same thing was done quite recently (apparently by Austria) in the case of the Italian passenger ship .1 ncona. This is not war, but murder. These facts raise an issue in which the in- terests oi* all mankind are involved. The Ger- man Government claims the right to kill the innocent because it suits their military interests. England denies this right, as all countries ought to deny it. She is contending in this war for humanity against cruelty, and she appeals to the conscience of all the neutral peoples to give her their moral support in this contention. Peoples that are now neutral may suffer in mi me just as those innocent persons I have referred to ar< suffering now. by these acts of unprecedented barbarity . \ England stands for .1 Pacific as opposed to a \I ilitary type of civilisation. Ber regular army had always been small in proportion to her population, and very small in comparison with the armies of great Continental nations. 18 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN Although she recognises that there are some countries in which universal service may- be necessary, and times at which it may be necessary in any country, she has preferred to leave her people free to follow their civil pursuits, and had raised her army by voluntary enlistment. Military and naval officers have never, as in Germany, formed a class by themselves, have never been a political power, or exercised political influence. The Cabinet Ministers placed in charge of these two services have always been civilian statesmen — not Generals or Admirals— until the outbreak of the present war, when, for the first time, under the stress of a new emergency, a pro- fessional soldier of long experience was placed at the head of the War Department. England has repeatedly sought at European Conferences to bring about a reduction of war armaments, as well as to secure improved rules mitigating the usages of war ; but has found her efforts baffled by the opposition of Germany. In none of the larger countries, except perhaps in the United States, are the people so generally and sincerely attached to peace. It may be asked why, if this is so, does Eng- land maintain so large a navy. The question deserves an answer. Her navy is maintained for three reasons. The first is, that as her army has been very small she is obliged to protect i\ I ill. PR] SI \ I w m; 19 herself by a strong borne Beet from any risk of invasion. She has never forgotten the lesson oi the Napoleonic wars, when il was the n.i ■> that saved her from the fate which befell so many European countries at Napoleon's hands. Weit' she not to keep up this first line of defence at sea, a huge army and a huge military expenditure in time of peace would be inevitable. The second reason is that as England does not produce nearly enough food to support her population, she must draw supplies from other countries, and would be in danger of starvation if in war-time she lost the command of the sea. It is, there- fore, vita] to her existence that she should be able to secure the unimpeded import of articles of food. And the third reason is that England is responsible for the defence of the coasts and the commerce of her colonies and other foreign possessions, such as [ndia These do mil maintain a cava I force sufficient for their defence, and the Mother Country is therefore compelled to have a fleet sufficient to guarantee their safety and protect their shipping. No t State has such far reaching liabili- and, i herefore, do ot her needs a Davy so la: Urn. mi must maintain. In this policy i here is do warlike or aggressive spirit, do menace to ( 'i her o >un1 ri< 1 1 '\s a measure purely of defence costly and burdensome, but borne 20 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN because her own safety and that of her colonies absolutely require it. Neither has Britain used her naval strength to inflict harm on any other countries. In time of peace she has not tried to use it to injure the commerce of her chief industrial competitors. It did nothing to retard the rapid growth of the mercantile marines of Germany and Norway, both of which have been immensely developed in recent years. The free- dom of the seas has, in time of peace, never been infringed by her. In time of war she doubtless exercises those rights of maritime blockade, search and capture which her naval strength enables her to exert. But rights of blockade and capture have always been exerted by every naval power in war time. They are a recognised method of war and were exerted in the American Civil War fifty years ago, in the war of France with China, in the war of Chile with Peru, and in the more recent war between Japan and Russia. They are not rights newly claimed by Britain, and they have been exercised with a constant respect for the lives of non-combatants. So far from using her sea-power to the pre- judice of other countries in peace time, and try- ing by its aid to promote her own commercial interests, Britain is the only great country which has opened her doors freely to the com- merce of every other country. Sixty years ago IN THE PRESENT WAR. 21 she adopted, and has ever since consistently practised, the policy of tree trade. She im- poses upon imports no duties intended to protect her own agriculture or her own manufactures. She gives no advantages to her own shippim.', hi her own ports, she pays no bounties to her i»\vn shipping, she allows even coasting trade between her own ports to be open on equal terms to the ships of all nations. A Dutch or Swedish or Norwegian vessel may trade from Newcastle to London as freely as a British vessel. And this free trade policy lias been carried out consistently in all the British colonial posses si ons. Neither in India, nor in those British colonies whose tariffs are com rolled by the Mother Country, are duties imposed upon Imports, except for the purpose of rais ing revenue. Such self-governing Dominions as Canada and Australia have control of their own tariff- and impose what duties they please — even against the Mother Country; but that is .1 part of the self-governmenl which these I tominions have long en i<>\ ed The policy of free trade lias been supported, and is valued In Britain nol onrj on economic grounds, hut also because it is deemed to tend towards international peace Richard Cobden, the first and most powerful champion of that polii 'A in that its highest value He thought that it would so link the nations 22 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN together, helping them to know one another, en- riching them all, and making each interested in the prosperity of the other (each being both a producer and a consumer, each supplying the other's needs and profiting by the exchange), that all would be reluctant to break the peace with one another. This idea — although Cob- den's hopes have proved to be too sanguine — has always had great weight in British com- mercial policy, which has sought for no exclusive advantages, but aimed solely at a field open to all competitors. As an industrial people the English desire peace. They have never made military glory their ideal. They have regarded war, not like Treitschke and his school, as wholesome and necessary, but as an evil, an evil which, although it gives an opportunity (as Europe sees to-day) for splendid displays of patriotism and heroic valour, is the cause of infinite suffer- ing and misery and ought, if possible, to be got rid of from the world. The killing of workers and the destruction of property are a hideous waste of human effort. War has done more than anything else to retard the progress of mankind. Our English ideal for the future is of a world in which every people shall have within its own borders a free national government resting on, and conforming to, the general will of its IN THE PRESENT WAR. 23 citizens, a government able to devote its efforts to improving the condition of the people without encroaching on il ighbours, or being dis turbed by the fear of an attack from enemies abroad. Legislators and administrators have already tasks sufficiently difficult in reconciling the claims of different classes, in adjusting the interests of capital and labour, in promoting health and diffusing education and enlighten- ment, without the addition of those tasks and dangers which arise from the terror of foreign war. There is, of course, a certain chauvinistic ele- ment in England, as in all countries, which finds some expression in newspapers and books. There are some persons with a deficient respect for the rights of other nations — persons who in- dulge in sentiments of hatred, persons who be- lieve in force, persons who, in fact, have what is now known as the "Prussian view of the world," and the Prussian preference of Might lo Right. But such persons are in England mparatively few; they are a diminishing .ant ity and they command little influence. 'I'll'' of the nat ion docs Dot cherish hat reds, satisfied with what it possesses, does not intend in on ii--. neighb does aol seek to in ; its own type of civilisation on the world. Our English phrase "lave and let live' ei ^thisfeelii Though we prefer our own 24 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN way of living for ourselves, we do not think it therefore the best for other peoples also, and no more wish to see the world all English than we wish to see it all Prussian. The British people did not enter the war for the sake of gaining anything for themselves. They have not now fixed their mind on gaining (so far as concerns objects specially dear to themselves*) anything except a vindication of the sanctity of treaties, a fuller security for the rights of neutral nations, compensation to Belgium for the injuries inflicted on her, and adequate guaran- tees of future peace for themselves and their colonies. To this one must now add — measures that will make impossible in the future cruelties and oppressions such as the Turks have prac- tised upon the Eastern Christians. In the foregoing pages I have sought to describe what I believe to be the principles and feelings and aims of the British people as a whole. Let me add a few words of a more personal kind to explain the sentiments of those Englishmen who have in time past known and admired the achievements of the German people in literature, learning and science, who had desired peace with them, who had been the constant advocates of friendship between the two nations. Such Englishmen, who do not cease to be lovers of peace because this war, felt to be righteous, commands * I speak of course only of what regards Britain's own aims, not of what primarily concerns her Allies. IN THE PRESENT WAR. 25 their hearty support, are now just as determined as any others to carry on the war to victory. Why ? Because to them this war presents itself as a conflict of princi- ples. On the <>nc side there is the doctrine thai the end of the State is Power, that Might makes "Right, that the State is above morality, that war is necessary and even desirable as a factor in progress, that the rights of small States must ■jive way to the interests of great States, that the State may disregard all obli gations whether undertaken by treaties or pre scribed by tin- common sentiment of mankind, and that what is called military necessity justi- fies every kind of harshness and cruelty in war. This is an old doctrine as old as the sophists whom Socrates encountered in Athens. It has in every age been held by some ambitious and unscrupulous statesmen. Many a Greek tyrant of antiquity, many an Italian tyrant in the Middle \'_ r e< and the "Renaissance, put it in practice. Caesar Borgia is the most, striking instance in the 15th century, Frederick the Great in the 18th, Napoleon Bonaparte in the 19th. Or the other side there is the doctrine thai the end of the State is Justice, the doctrine thai ff< ite is, like the individual, subject to a moral l;i\v and bound in liorioiir to oliser\e its promises, thai nations owe duties to one another and to mankind al large, thai they have all 26 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN more to gain by peace than by strife, that national hatreds are deadly things, condemned by philosophy and by Christianity. In the victory of one or the other of these principles the future of mankind seems to us to be at stake. I do not attribute to the German people an adherence to the former set of doctrines, for I do not know how far these doctrines are held outside the military and naval caste which has now unhappily gained control of German policy, and I cannot believe that the German people, as I have hitherto known them, ever since I studied at a German University more than fifty years ago, could possibly approve of the action of their Government if their Government suffered them to know the facts relating to the origin and conduct of the war as those facts are known to the rest of the world. We have had no hatred of the German people. We did not grudge them their prosperity. Neither have we any wish to break up Germany, destroying her national unity, or to interfere in any way with her in- ternal politics. Our quarrel is with the Ger- man Government. We think it a danger to every peaceful country and believe that in fight- ing against its doctrines, its ambitions, its methods of warfare, we and our Allies are virtually fighting the battle of all peace-loving neutral nations as well as our own. We must fight on till victory is won, for a Government rx THE PRESENT WAR. 27 which scorns treaties and wages an inhuman warfare against innocent non-combatants can- not be suffered to prevail by such methods. A triumphant and aggressive Germany, mistress the seas as well as of the land, would be a menace to every nation, even to those of the western hemisphere. Be this as it may, the facts show that the present rulers of Germany have acted upon the former set of doctrines as consistently as ever did Frederick or Napoleon. They seem to us to be smitten with a kind of mental disease w r hich has sapped honour, ex- tinguished pity, and destroyed their sense of right and wrong. They invaded Belgium with- out provocation and slaughtered thousands of innocent non-combatants. They have persisted, against the protests of America, in drowning innocent non-combatants at sea. They look calmly on while the Turkish allies win an they have dragged into the war, and whose action they could restrain if they cared to do so, are exterminating, with every cruelty Turkish ferocity can devise, a whole Christian nation. These tilings are a reversion to the ancient methods of savagery which marked the warfare of bygone age They are a challenge to civilised mankind to neutrals, .-is well as to the dow belligerent States. Neutral cations would do well to recognise this, for tfiev are themselves concerned. The same 28 THE ATTITUDE OF GREAT BRITAIN methods may be hereafter used against them as are being used now. They also ought to desire the defeat of any and every Government which adopts such principles and practises such methods, for its victory would be a blow to morality and human progress which it would take centuries to retrieve. Those Englishmen whose views I am seeking to express, recognising the allegiance we all owe to humanity at large, and. believing that pro- gress is achieved more by co-operation than by strife, are, however, hoping for 'something more than the victory of their own country. They desire to see the world relieved from the burden of armaments and from that constant terror of war which has been darkening its sky for so many generations. They ask whether it may not be possible, after the war has come to an end, to form among the nations an effective League of Peace, embracing smaller as well as larger peoples — under whose a?gis disputes might be amicably settled and the power of the League invoked to prevent any one State from disturbing the general tranquillity. The obstacles in the way of creating such a League are many and obvious, but whatever else may come out of the war, we in England hope that one result, of it will be the creation of some machinery calculated to avert the recurrence of so awful a calamity as that from which man- kind is now suffering. LONDON : JAS. TRUSCOTT & SON, Ltd. T) AA 000 284 497 5 THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA s.tnta Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. NOV 1 2001 QUART §4 'to AN WTER LC !/'•' University Souther Librar