COULTON 
 Workers and war.
 
 WORKERS AND WAR 
 
 BY 
 
 G. G. COULTON, MA 
 
 Cambridge : Bow^s & Bowes 
 
 1914 
 
 PRICE ONE PENNY 
 {Proceeds to he given to the Soldiers and Sailors' Fund)
 
 \
 
 esq 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 r-- 
 
 o 
 
 cri 
 
 4J 
 
 
 
 t^n 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 u- 
 
 CD 
 
 ? 
 
 QQ 
 
 
 q> 
 
 t/) 
 
 -c: 
 
 12 
 
 ■+-J 
 
 Vm 
 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 d. 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 1) 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 ■^ 
 
 C/3 
 
 c; 
 
 c> 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 TO 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 a 
 
 as 
 
 4) 
 
 > 
 
 CO 
 
 S 
 o 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 -g 
 
 > 
 
 <u 
 (/I 
 
 a 
 o 
 U 
 u 
 
 Mr— , 
 
 o o 
 
 CL c 
 
 "" in 
 
 X! O 
 o — 
 
 .0 
 
 a 
 
 V 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 >^ 
 
 C4
 
 Workers and War 
 
 An Awakened People. 
 
 Now is the time to attempt to make the British people understand 
 what the working-class leaders on the Continent think about war and 
 preparation for war. For our wage-earning classes are now roused, and 
 will face facts which they have too long ignored. It has not been their 
 fault if they have not seen these things long ago; the blame lies mainly 
 at the door of their official leaders. This spring, when the delegates 
 from the Continent came to the Tiades Union Congress at Bradford, one 
 of the foreign speakers was Vandervelde, the Belgian Socialist leader, 
 who has now been clio.sen to present his country's case before the 
 United States of America. One passage of Vandervelde's speech at 
 Bradford created a half-scandalized amusement ainong the audience. 
 He told his British friends, in blunt but friendly words, that it would do 
 them no harm to introduce more intelligence into the Labour Party. 
 A Swiss Socialist, with whom I was conversing only a fortnight before 
 the outbreak of this war, remarked to me that British Trades Unionism 
 was still running almost on the old lines of fifty years ago, and that its 
 worst weakness was its conservatism. British Labour Leaders are at 
 the present day almost incredibly ignorant of what is being done on the 
 Continent ; but they remain perfectly well satisfied in their ignorance, 
 and therefore the rank and file of the Labour Party suffer too often from 
 the blindness of their leaders. 
 
 The WorKers and War. 
 
 This extreme insularity, this wilful ignorance on the part of the 
 leaders, has very deeply influenced the British Labour attitude towards 
 War. Vorty years ago, John Stuart Mill was obliged to protest against 
 the attitude of British Labour Leaders, who wanted this country to 
 plunge into the Franco-German war because France had just set up a 
 Republican Government. Our present Labour Leaders have fallen back 
 from this attitude into its extreme opposite ; during the last generation 
 they have preached non-intervention at any cost. They have tried to 
 get rid of war by pretending to themselves that war was a mere bogey. 
 Apart from the attempt to organize an international strike against war — 
 a policy which even the International Arbitration League was obliged 
 to condemn as premature and unstatesmanlike — the present Labour 
 Leaders have pursued no definite policy, beyond a vague cry for dis- 
 armament. Even here they have not always had the courage to light 
 for their opinions; many of them have just preached reduction to their 
 constituents, and then voted for the Army and Navy supplies like their 
 brother M.P.'s. Though so good a Liberal as Mr. Chiozza Money offered 
 to debate the question with any M.P. who had the courage of his con- 
 victions — with any M.P. who would not only talk about disarmament 
 outside, but also vote for disarmament inside the House — I believe I 
 am right in saying that his challenge was never taken up. So far as 
 any steady principle may be said to underlie the attitude of modern 
 British Labour Leaders towards military questions, it may be summed 
 up very briefly. They have said, " Ignore war, and you will not have 
 war. Only avoid speaking about it, only avoid thinking about it, and it 
 will never come. It is a meie bogey."
 
 Facing Facts. 
 
 We all see now that war is no bogey, but one of the hardest facts in 
 this hard world. In the face of the nonsense which certain officials of 
 the Independent Labour Party are still talking about Belgium, let every 
 worker ask himself this common-sense question, " What would have 
 happened to Belgium if she had accepted the Kaiser's demands?"^ If 
 she had disarmed her own soldiery, and suffered the Germans to march 
 through her territory, where would she have been now ? Let us first 
 put the question as if we ourselves had been the party mainly con- 
 cerned. What would the voters of this country say to any Government 
 which allowed a million men, such as we know the German soldiery to, 
 be both in theory and practice, to march through this land of ours ? I 
 hope and believe that a great many published tales of German military 
 atrocities are false or exaggerated ; but the things that we know for 
 certain are quite enough. We know that some at least of these million 
 soldiers would be frequently drunk with liquor, and that the mass of 
 them would be drunken with those outrageous ideas which made the 
 Zabern business possible even in times of peace. How can a million of 
 such soldiers, inflamed with all the spirit of war, urged on by dire 
 necessity, and speaking an unintelligible language — how can such a 
 horde press forward through a foreign country without doing irremedi- 
 able harm ? Even though the Belgian Government had promised peace, 
 was it to be expected that no single Belgian citizen should rebel ? that 
 no outraged father or husband should fire one single hasty shot in 
 revenge for some intolerable wrong, or that no man should resist when 
 a foreign soldiery commandeered his cattle and his corn ? Yet, for 
 every irresponsible shot thus fired, the Germans would have exacted the 
 same kind of revenge which we have seen now on a larger scale at 
 Louvain. And even supposing that, by a miracle, the Belgians them- 
 selves had avoided all conflict with the German army, how about the 
 French ? In granting a free passage to one combatant, Belgium would 
 have broken her own faith. By obeying Germany she would have 
 forfeited her position as a neutral no less hopelessly than she has now 
 forfeited it by resisting Germany. While the Germans were pouring in 
 at one side, the French would have poured in at the other; and the tide 
 of war would inevitably have swept backwards and forwards over 
 Belgian territory. From the moment that Germany determined to 
 violate Belgian neutrality, that unhappy little country was irremediably 
 doomed to all the horrors of war. Whether she chose to resist Germany, 
 or to give way to Germany, she was equally doomed. 
 
 German Statesmen and their British Apologists. 
 
 And as to Germany's determination to violate Belgium's neutrality, 
 there can be no possible doubt now. On July 31st the German Foreign 
 Office refused to promise that Belgium should be spared, because such a 
 promise "could not but disclose a certain amount of their plan of cam- 
 paign." ]\Ioreover, they asserted " that certain hostile acts have already 
 been committed by Belgium" (White Book No. 122). On Aug. 1st the 
 German Amba.ssador in England " asked me [Sir Edward Grey] whether, 
 if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian territory, we would 
 engage to remain neutral" (British White Book No. 123). So much 
 has been made of this document by Mr. Keir Hardie, and by a few
 
 other persons equally impenetrable to reason, that it is worth while 
 dwelling on it for a moment. Firstly, the Ambassador did not pretend 
 that he had authority from his Government to conclude any terms. 
 His superior, the Foreign Secretary, had already refused to guarantee 
 Belgian neutrality the day before (July ;ilst). Under these circumstances, 
 the Ambassador's question to Sir E. Grey was simply an attempt to 
 make Britain commit herself in the dark, while Germany was refusing 
 to commit herself even in the daylight. For (as so steadfast a Liberal 
 and Paciticist as Dr. Holland Rose has pointed out) what did the 
 Ambassador's offer amount to in plain English? He said in effect, 
 " What will you give us, if we promise now that we will not break 
 our own solemn written promise?" What is the commercial value 
 of a business man's promise by word of mouth, to the effect that 
 he will not break the solemn promise to which he long ago set his 
 signature on paper ?2 Could a man answer more prudently and more 
 politely than Sir Edward Grey did? — "All I could say was, that our 
 attitude would be determined by public opinion here, and that the 
 neutrality of Belgium would appeal very strongly to public opinion 
 here." In plain words, " The British Government must act as the 
 British public desires; and the British public is not likely to repudiate 
 its own engagements towards neutral Belgium." Sir Edward Grey 
 knew perfectly well that Germany had alieady declared war upon 
 Russia and France, in spite of all our efforts to settle the matter 
 in Conference. He knew also that, even while the German Ambassador 
 pretended to negotiate, German troops were already massed against 
 Belgium ; and he probably knew, what we know now, that on this 
 very day of the Ambassador's (Question, on this very 1st of August, 
 German troops had violated neiitral territor3^ All that they desired was 
 to play with us a little longer, and thus to gain a few more days for 
 military preparations. 
 
 The Belgian Workman. 
 
 Mr Keir Hardie cannot see this plain fact, because he does not wish 
 to see it. To him, this quarrel is simply a case of " six of one and half- 
 a-dozen of the other." Britain is at war with Germany, and therefore 
 there is practically nothing to choose between the two antagonists! As 
 he puts it in the Labour Leader for August 27th, "Our being in the 
 war is a matter of the free choice of our rulers, who appear to prefer 
 that Russia should become the domineering power of Europe." A 
 similar assertion was made in the accompanying circular from the 
 Executive Council of the Independent Labour Party, which repeated 
 that "Great Britain is not at war because of oppressed nationalities and 
 Belgian neutrality."^ Finally, in a letter to the Dnih/ Citizen (Sep- 
 tember 4th), Mr. Keir Hardie writes: "By and by ire shall learn ivhat 
 our comrades on the Continent are doing ; meanwhile let us remember 
 that Germany, France, and Belgium are all threatened with invasion, 
 of which ^ue rvn no risk." Therefore (he explain.s) the Independent 
 Labour Party must refuse to join in with all the other parties (including 
 the Trades Unions and the Parliamentary Labour Party) in their non- 
 party national recruiting campaign ! Let the reader specially mark the 
 words I have italicized. The words "we run no risk" are, of course, 
 just a piece of wilful ignorance — the ignorance of a man who has repeated 
 the parrot-cry so often on political platforms that he can no longer get
 
 it out of his head. But let us try to imagine the state of mind of a 
 member of Parliament who, on the 4th of September, can solemnly ask 
 us to "remember" that France and Belgium are "threatened with 
 invasion!" Do we see in this sentence the amiable moonshine of a 
 man who lives habitually in some higher world of imagination, and who 
 therefore can't see the brutal facts that stare us all in the face ? Have we 
 here the ideal Internationalist ? No We have here a man habitually 
 ignorant of all Continental democratic opinion, ignorant even of his 
 own ignorance, and lacking all sane imagination that might correct this 
 native ignorance. We have here a mere dried-up shell of a party 
 politician, not even inspired by one spark of true International feeling 
 at the bottom of his heart. 
 
 For the core of Internationalism is this: that all honest workmen 
 are brothers ; and that, if there must be a fight, the workman's true part 
 is with his fellow-workman, whatever his country may be, against the 
 oppressor, whatever his country may be. The Belgian miner is as truly 
 Mr. Keir Hardie's brother as the Merthyr miner. If his Internationalism 
 were even skin-deep— if it were more than the mere smudge of political 
 rouge which he puts upon his cheeks for platform purposes— how could 
 he forget his brotherhood with Belgium at this moment ? The Belgian 
 working classes, who asked for nothing but to be left in peace, are now 
 being robbed, ruined, and killed by hundreds and by thousands. It is 
 the greatest tragedy that has befallen any proletariate for the last 
 huudl-ed years. It has been going on for more than a month; but, on 
 Sept. 4th, Mr. Keir Hardie knows only that Belgium is " threatened 
 with invasion ... of which ive run no risk ; " and he therefore utters 
 a Pecksniffian hope that British Socialists will lift no finger to reinforce 
 these misguided British soldiers who are shedding their life's blood in 
 defence o1 Belgian workmen. The worst enemies of democracy have 
 long been proclaiming, to a world that is only too credulous of evil, that 
 Internationalism was only half delusion, half hypocrisy, and that its 
 leaders were mere platform humbugs. They have assured us that, under 
 his fine pretences, the Internationalist would always put his party before 
 the state, and his own crank or his own self-interest before the party. 
 It has been left to Mr. Keir Hardie to prove that there is too much 
 justice in this cynical estimate. Even those who had least trusted the 
 German Kaiser were hardly prepared for what he has shown us during 
 the past month. Even those who were least inclined to take Mr. Keir 
 Hardie at his own valuation, have yet been astounded at this unconscious 
 betrayal of his narrow mind and his want of true feeling. 
 
 Half=wilful Ignorance. 
 
 " By and by," writes Mr. Hardie, " we shall learn what our comrades 
 on the Continent are doing." These words do as little credit to his 
 head as the other words do to his feelings. It would be difficult to 
 find a better illustration of the childish and parochial ignorance of the 
 average British Labour M.P. For years German Socialists have pro- 
 claimed, as their leader Bebel proclaimed, that they would try their 
 hardest to avoid war, but that, when once war was declared, they would 
 fiaht with as much determination as any other German. Jaur^s, in 
 the name of the French Socialists, declared equally plainly that all 
 would fio-ht desperately for France if France were attacked. French
 
 and Belgian Socialists actually joined their respective national Ministries 
 when this present war broke out; and the Socialist parties officially 
 proclaimed their solidarity with ilieir fellow-countrymen. Haase did 
 indeed make an academic protest in the German Reichstag; yet he 
 and his fellow-Socialists not only voted the war credit a few minutes 
 afterwards, but actually shook the Kaisers proffered hand, in token 
 of tJicir unity with him. Liebknocht, who was at first reported to 
 have been shot was afterwards reported to have become a militarist 
 himself, to the extent of re-eni^^aging as a volunteer in the German 
 Army* Dr. Franck, who will probably rise some day to the leadership 
 of the party, has been wounded in battle. We know that German 
 Socialism is to some extent protesting still : we have every reason to 
 hope that it may prove a potent influence for peace at some future date, 
 if the war goes against the Kaiser; but, meanwhile, Socialist bullets 
 and Socialist bayonets are helping to stave oti' the Kaiser's defeat. The 
 struggle between Nationalism and Internationalism, in the last days of 
 this July, can hardly be called a struggle at all. At the first serious 
 pinch, Continental Socialism declared itself frankly Nationalist. That 
 Internationalism will be one of the great forces of the future, I, for one, 
 am convinced. But it is blindness not to recognize (as Mr. Keighloy 
 Snowden now frankly confesses) that Internationalism was found this 
 year to be hopelessly unripe for its task.^ And our admiration of Mr. 
 Snowden's present frankness need not blind us to the fact that a little 
 first-hand knowledge of foreign Socialism would amply have prepared 
 him and his friends for this sudden and painful discovery. The Writing 
 on the Wall was plain enough : but British Labour Leaders not only 
 ignored it, they almost gloried in their ignorance. Mr. Hardie imagines 
 that he is taking up a statesmanlike position when he says, " By and by 
 we shall see what our comrades on the Continent are doing." He might 
 as well say, in the same solemn and judicial tone, "By and by we shall 
 learn whether the sun is daily rising and setting in Germany." As 
 Vandervelde told him plainly in the spring of this year, and as V Hunianite 
 would have told him if ho had taken the trouble to read that excellent 
 organ of French Socialism, Continental democrats are half-pained, half- 
 amused at this complacent insularity of British democracy. Men like 
 Mr. Goldstone go their own way in steady endeavours to raise the 
 workman's position by measures of constructive Socialism ; and the 
 public will not expect, from such Labour Leaders as are doing this kind 
 of solid unostentatious work, any great familiarity with what may be 
 called the Foreign Politics of Labour. But, meanwhile, the greatest 
 noise is made by the men who are most hopelessly and most unpardon- 
 ably ignorant. These are the sort who crow their loudest when they 
 shut their eyes. .Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. John Ward, Mr. Philip Snowtlen, 
 Mr. Freil Maddison, Mr. Bruce Glasier — men who have talked most 
 frequently and most noisily about Continental Democracies and Militarism 
 — have all made public assertions which can only be pardoned on the 
 plea of gross anil unconscious ignorance. And, in mentioning the.se 
 men by name, 1 will give the best possible pledge for my own sense of 
 responsibility. To any one of these men, or to any deputy officially 
 appointed by him, I will give three pages at the end of this pamphlet for 
 the exposure of any mis-statements which he may thiid< I am making. 
 And, after replying myself in not more than three pages, I will give him 
 the last word. He shall have a final page entirely to himself, on
 
 8 
 
 the uiKlerstanding that he raises no fresh point, but simply discusses 
 what has gone before. If I am wrong in my facts, I am here offering 
 all possible facilities for my exposure. But 1 have little hope that any 
 of these gentlemen will accept my offer, either personally or by proxy. 
 Every one of them, at the bottom of his heart, has just enough suspicion 
 of his own ignorance. Each has a bad conscience in this matter, and 
 conscience doth make cowards of us all. They know themselves a little 
 better than the public knows them ; they know that they have to shut 
 their eyes in order to crow their best ; and it is very doubtful whether 
 one of them will risk himself in any discussion which turns upon actual 
 questions of fact. A politician can always survive any exposure so long 
 as he takes good care not to expose himself. And, whatever they may 
 have been in earlier days, these men whom I have named are now 
 politicians to the very marrow of their bones. Their attitude towards 
 truth is the politician's attitude : " Let us work all convenient facts for 
 all they are worth, or a little more ; let us drop all inconvenient realities 
 like a hot coal." One of them has even expressed openly, in public 
 debate, his approval of Disraeli's cynical maxim : " Never retract, never 
 explain, never apologize ! " 
 
 The Mind of the Continental Socialist. 
 
 I spent ray last Easter holiday in Belgium, interviewing prominent 
 Radicals and Socialists about their recent National Defence Act. Neithei 
 my hosts nor I guessed how terribly real this question would become 
 before the summer was out ; but this gives all the more significance to the 
 following report, of which I give the original French in Appendix A, 
 with the names of the gentlemen who vouched for its accuracy. Among 
 these the reader will notice that of the Socialist Deputy, Edouard 
 Anseele, who, with Vandervelde, was among the four leaders deputed 
 to sign the recent "Manifesto to the Internationale from the French 
 and Belgian Socialist Parties." ^ 1 had vouchers for its accuracy from 
 working-men also, including the compositor, proof-reader, and clerk 
 through whose hands it passed in the Socialist printing establishment 
 at Ghent : — 
 
 " For more than thirty years past the Liberal party in Belgium has been 
 demanding compulsory military service on a general national 
 system. 
 "This claim formed part of the Liberal platform at the last elections 
 (1012), but the Conservatives then fought against it as hard as 
 they could. 
 "However, when the Conservatives kept in power in 1912, they 
 were obliged to take a different view ; and it was they who passed 
 the law for Compulsory Military Service, with exceptions for 
 religious reasons. Part of the Liberal Opposition gave their 
 support to the Government, while protesting against unjustified 
 exemptions from service. 
 " The Socialist party also accepted t]i,e prmciple, while demanding 
 some very important modifications (six months' service, 
 democratic promotion, etc.) In short, the ideal of the 
 Socialist party is 'the nation in arms' on the Swiss model. 
 But, if once they can get this, the Socialist party have not 
 the least idea of abolishing the principles of (1) compulsion 
 and (2) universality. They advocate the Swiss system as a
 
 
 
 mininuim, until universal arbitration and disarmament sliall 
 have come within the range of practical politics. They 
 agree with the Liberals that, so long as any kind of army is 
 necessary, that army must comprise /Ac >'■/,<,/,■ j,t,j,,i/,ih,ni, with 
 necessary exceptions for physical incapacity, or young men 
 on whom a whole family depends. 
 " This law, ouce passed, Las met with uo serious opposition on 
 principle; tlie whole country has taken it quite (juietly, apart 
 from the Socialist opposition, which is based on their system of 
 ' a nation in arms ' on the Swiss model. 
 " It must be specially noticed that no Liberal or Socialist Trade 
 Union has contested the principle of the law. Such opposition 
 as there has been, has been from Conservative Unions. 
 " In fact, Conservative Associations, whether of the middle classes 
 or of workmen, have fought all through against the system of 
 general military service ; and, so far as they sank their opposition 
 in 1912, it was only because the force of circumstances was too 
 great for them, as their representatives declared in Parliament.'"^ 
 The words here italicized were italicized in my f'rench original to mark 
 the importance attached to them both by my informants and by myself 
 The paragraph in thick type represents the ground which is 
 common to Belgian and French Socialism. From Ghent and Brussels 
 I went on to Paris, where I was prevented from seeing Jaures by the 
 stress of his electioneering campaign, but was able to secure an inter- 
 view with M. Albert Thomas, his close friend and fellow-Deputy, who 
 was one of the official signatories of the French Socialist Manifesto when 
 this war broke out. M. Thomas assured me that this principle admitted 
 by the Belgian Socialists (and which I have here printed in thick type) 
 was held by their French brethren also. Only one man, among those 
 whom I interviewed in Paris, refused to endorse it ; he was an extreme 
 Syndicalist, who would have abolished all armies, but who afso waged 
 equally implacable war upon all systems of parliamentary representation 
 or government ! M. Thomas assured me also that the well-meaning 
 British pacificists, who imagined Jaures to be an ••pponent of the 
 principle of compulsory military service, could not have taken the 
 trouble to read his book on that subject ; and, further, that their attitude 
 betrayed ignorance of the real meaning of the campaign against the 
 Three Years' Service in France. I quoted (without naming the author) 
 some wild assertions which Mr. Philip Snowden had lately made on 
 this subject. Albert Thomas smiled indulgently, and shrugged his 
 shoulders. If Mr. Snowden and other British Labour leaders have been 
 taken aback by the attitude of Continental Socialism since this war 
 began, this is only due to their own disgraceful anil (it may almost be 
 said) to their wilful and deliberate ignorance of facts which have long 
 been staring them in the lace. 
 
 Such ignorance seem almost incredible. I am quite aware that the 
 prejudices of my readers — for 1 write for working-men — will be dead 
 against me. Where I oppose my word to Mr. Philip Snowdeu's, they 
 will be inclineil to see a Capitalist attack upon Labour; though Mr. 
 Snowdeu's inconie is probably at least three times as large as mine, 
 aud I would willingly become a Socialist to-morrow if I believed the 
 world ripe for anything more revolutionary than definite schemes of 
 constructive Socialism, such as the National Insurance Act aud the
 
 10 
 
 Minorit}' Report of the Poor Law Commission. The initial prejudice, 
 however, will be dead against me; but many, I know, will begin to 
 draw their own conclusions when they see that men like Mr. Snowden 
 decline to face the facts here advanced. They will ask themselves 
 whether these facts are not vital to any true comprehension of Inter- 
 national Labour Politics. They will want to know why, among our 
 thirty-nine Labour Members in Parliament, there was not one who 
 had discovered these things ; or at least not one who, having discovered 
 them, had the courage and the honesty to let the working men of this 
 country know the truth. However ignorant of foreign languages and 
 foreign manners these Labour Members may be — and I happen to know 
 that their ignorance in some cases is almost bottomless — they could 
 easily have found foreign Socialists who spoke English well, and would 
 have told them the truth. The real facts were far more accessible to 
 Mr. Keir Hardie or to Mr. Snowden than to most people. Yet the 
 whole group of Labour Members were quite content to go on living 
 as if Belgium and France and Germany were on some other planet, 
 and to encourage their constituents in equal ignorance. But it is one 
 of the good results of this lamentable war, that the people of Great 
 Britain are at last willing to face many truths hitherto most unwelcome, 
 and most steadily ignored. Facing the truth now, they will draw their 
 own conclusions; and they will never quite forget. Therefore, the 
 Labour Group of our next Parliament will either include a sadder 
 and a wiser Keir Hardie and Philip Snowden ; or else (sadder still) 
 it will include no Keir Hardie and no Snowden at all. And foreign 
 democrats will no longer come away from Great Britain half-laughing 
 and half-mourning at the self-contented insularity of these men who have 
 professed to stand for progressive thought, uiid to whom British Labour 
 has looked for some real guidance. We shall no hmger feel that " the 
 hungry sheep look up, and are not fed." 
 
 The Swiss Workman. 
 
 After all, this Continental attitude is natural enough. In countries 
 where nobody can flatter himself that " we run no risk," there are two 
 reasons which tell with overwhelming force in favour of compulsory 
 military training ; efficiency demands it, and justice demands it. Firstly, 
 efficiency demands it. The voluntary system has long been abandoned 
 by civilized states in all other essential departments of national life. 
 Compulsory schooling has been adopted by state after state, in propor- 
 tion as each has opened its eyes to the fact that a nation's greatness 
 must depend to a vast extent upon its education. Great Britain, which 
 clung to the voluntary system longer than any other state of equal size 
 and pretensions to civilization, has long recognized the folly of this 
 delay, and is struggling now to make up the ground which she lost 
 before 1870. The old system spelt waste and national inefficiency; the 
 compulsory .system is beginning at last to utilize all the intellectual 
 resources of the nation. Under the old system, a few schools turned out 
 boys of a type which no other country po.ssessed. The " public school.s," 
 for the upper classes, had all the strength and the weakness of our 
 voluntary army system. They taught, and still teach, a certain attitude 
 towards life, and a certain resourcefulness, which could never be learned 
 from mere books. The Briiish " public school boy " compares with his
 
 11 
 
 Germati brother very much us our soldiers compare with the German 
 soldiers. But iu education, as in war, though our quality was good, our 
 numbers were too small. No nation which contents itseli with develop- 
 ing a few, while it neglects the rest, can hold its own under modern 
 competition. The introduction of compulsory education has not killed 
 the old Public School spirit; it has supplemented it. In many direc- 
 tions it has forced reform upon the public schools; the rich are now 
 comj)elled to increase the educational pace because the poor are tread- 
 ing hard upon their heels. Antl if, at the back of our admirable volun- 
 tary and professional army, we had a system of Compulsory Territorialism, 
 there again the multitude would have a good deal to teach even to the 
 select few. National compulsion in military training, as in school 
 training, spells national efficiency. Whatever pride we justly feel in our 
 own soldiers, let us not forget that the Liege forts were defended by 
 conscripts and stormed by conscripts. 
 
 Again, universal service spells greater justice. With all our pride in 
 the thousands who are now volunteering, let us not forget the still 
 greater numbers who are not coming forward. For every man who 
 enlists, three or four are holding back, who had apparently no better 
 reasons for remaining than the man who has gone to the front. More- 
 over, many of these, if they once came forward and submitted to training, 
 would make just as good soldiers as the rest. It is only when a nation 
 puts all to school, that she finds out all her latent genius ; and the same 
 holds good of military qualities also. Nor need we here press equality 
 of opportunity to the verge of injustice. There is no reason why a 
 nation should not allow the utmost latitude to the real conscientious 
 objector. There are many national necessities besides military training. 
 While the overwhelming majority were doing their six mouths of 
 Compulsory Territorialism, the small minority of conscientious objectors 
 might be doing their six months of equally hard work in our civil 
 hospitals — sweeping, carrying coals, performing all kinds of laborious 
 service, and saving thousands of pounds to the nation, while they had 
 the moral encouragement of ministering directly to their sutiering 
 fellow-men. Again, the financial burden might easily be met by a few 
 more pence upon the income tax, so that the richer man should be com- 
 pelled to pay, not only in person, but also in money, as he can atibrd to 
 pay. The present thoroughly unjust system, by whicii all the burden is 
 thrown upon the willing horse, Avould then be exchanged for some 
 measure of democratic justice. It was in the n:\me of lair play, as well 
 as in the name of efficiency, that the Belgian Radicals forced compulsory 
 service upon the unwilling Conservative Party. 
 
 Inexperience imagines Evil -Experience sees 
 
 the Good. 
 
 Whether we like it or not, we must face a fact about which too many 
 falsehoods have been circulated in Great Britain ; it may almost be s;iid 
 ddlheratelll ciroulated. The vast majority of the voters in all con- 
 tinental countries are not only in favour of the compulsory principle, 
 but even find it difficult to understand the British fear of universal 
 service. They argue that home defence is a national necessity — one of 
 the fundamental necessities of all social progress. Therefore, they say, 
 it must certainly be put upon the same business footing as all other
 
 12 
 
 national necessities. If, as some assert, even six months of drill are a 
 serious disadvantage to the individual citizen, then it is both unfair and 
 foolish to leave this drill to individual choice. Unfair: for with what 
 conscience can the Government ask one willing man to make this sacri- 
 fice for the sake of sparing seven others who are just as well able to bear 
 it? Foolish: for it puts a premium, to begin with, upon unpatriotic 
 individualism; secondly, it actually enables the shirker to pose as a 
 more moral and a more intellectual person than the " man of blood " who 
 is "learning to murder unoffending foreigners"; and thirdly, it ensures 
 that, if the Territorials ever had to fight, the nation should necessarily 
 lose a vastly disproportionate number of its bravest and most unselfish 
 citizens, who were best fitted to be the fathers of the coming race. The 
 volunteer spirit is a splendid spirit. That is all the more reason why a 
 nation should not treat its volunteers as the goose that laid the golden 
 
 eggs. 
 
 For the "if" upon which these last few sentences have turned is not 
 true ; six months' drill do not make a worse man or a worse citizen of 
 the individual. In Switzerland, less than a month before the outbreak 
 of this war, I was iutervievving several of the most prominent anti- 
 militarists of that country. One of them, who had himself done four 
 moriths of prison for refusing to turn out as a soldier in time of strike, 
 was yet free to confess that he saw no way but compulsion for efficient 
 home defence, and that his own quarrel was not with the principle but 
 with matters of detail.^ Another, whom I saw at Zurich, was an un- 
 compromising Marxian, and a devoted Internationalist.^ Yet even 
 he was forced to admit that not half the Swiss Socialist party could 
 be brought to the poll against the principle of compulsory service. 
 Twelve per cent, of the total vote of the nation was the extreme that 
 this most enthusiastic Zurich anti-militarist thought he could muster. 
 A few weeks later, when the Swiss Government mobilized to save the 
 country from the fate of Belgium, it was precisely at Zurich that the 
 representatives of different Socialists met to declare their confidence 
 in the Government, and their hope that these preparations would be 
 most thoroughly carried out. A few days later, I bought the weekly 
 Socialist paper at Lausanne. This breathed the same spirit; its fiercest 
 article was directed against the insignificant handful of " sans-patrie," 
 of anti-patriots, who had talked of an international strike at this 
 juncture! At the present moment, my Ziirich anti-militarist would 
 probably not claim that he could lead one per cent, to the poll against 
 the compulsory principle. Very few British institutions of equal im- 
 portance are accepted so unanimously as the army system is accepted in 
 Switzerland. It amounts to Compulsory Territorialism, but witli a far 
 more democratic ofScer-system ; and, so little does this compulsory six 
 months damp the volunteer energies of the nation, that there is more 
 extra volunteer work done in Switzerland, per head of population, than 
 all the work done by our Territorials in peace-time.^** 
 
 Foreign Anti=Militarism. 
 
 Such, then, is Swiss anti-militarism, and this is a type of the general 
 Continental spirit. In Continental countries, this " we run no risk " will 
 not do even as a parrot-cry for the platform ; and therefore the voter 
 faces national defence in a very different spirit to ours. Bebel, the
 
 13 
 
 German Socialist leader, wrote a little book pleading, not for disarma- 
 ment, but for the Swiss system. Anti-militarists in Russia are advocating 
 the same. Edouard Vaillant (the oldest representative, 1 believe, of the 
 French parliamentary Socialist party) committed himself some years ago 
 to the same propaganda. Poor Jaures never had time to write more 
 than one great book in his busy life; and that book was, from first to 
 last, a plea for twice as niucJc conipuUory tnditarlsin in France as In 
 Switzerland. Of all the scandalous suppressions of truth, and hints of 
 falsehood, by which the British workman has been hoodwinked during 
 these few years past, this falsification of Jaur^s's attitude is perhaps the 
 most scandalous. Mr. Ranjsay Macdonald, for instance, contributes to 
 the Coiitemporary Review for September 1914 a long article on Jaures. 
 It is mere froth, from beginning to end. Mr. Macdonald even mis- 
 spells his hero's name every time he mentions it — twenty-nine times ! 
 He has not a word to say of Jaures's great book, or of his attitude towards 
 the principle of compulsory service. This is bad enough, but Mr. Philip 
 Snowden has done even worse. In the Morning Post for Feb. 5th IQl-i 
 he had the hardihood to claim Jaures for an anti-militarist in his own 
 sense, that is, for an opponent of the compulsory principle. Lord 
 Roberts, replying next day, met this by an absolutely conclusive quotation 
 from Jaures's own book, and challenged Mr. Snowden to bring any 
 contrary evidence. Mr. Snowden, who up to that point had been most 
 voluble and aggressive, collapsed here altogether, and offered neither 
 reply nor apology. Readers who follow the extracts which I give later 
 on, (or who, better still, study Jaures for themselves), will understand 
 clearly enough why Mr. Snowden made no further attempt to justify his 
 mis-statement ; but they will not understand why he has never offered 
 any apology for it. The British workman has been steadily deceived on 
 this point, and most unconscientiously deceived, by the very men to 
 whom he has most naturally looked for true information. He has been 
 constantly fed with violent tirades against the French long-service 
 system by political partisans — tirades grossly exaggerated, because they 
 were thrown ofi' in the heat of debate. Scarcely a single British Liberal 
 has discovered, or at any rate publicly confessed, that Jaures and his 
 friends, who fought so hard against the three years, were in favour of 
 one year of compulsory service; and that they have advocated this, not 
 as a maximum, but ((.s^ a ini)iimiim ; as the least that could be expected 
 to guarantee national security, and therefore social progress.^^ Yet such 
 is the fact. Continental opinion is here in astounding contrast with 
 British opinion. The Continental working-man, like the British work- 
 ing-man, looks forward to a United States of Europe, in which inter- 
 national ilif^'erences will be settled by arbitration. But he has never 
 been do.sed with this British platform soothing-syrup of "we run no 
 risk." He sees clearly that international arbitration, like our own law 
 courts, must rest upon some basis of physical force in the last resort. 
 A system of arbitration which had no physical force at its dispo.sal would 
 simply prove a standing eucouragcinent to fraud and violence ; the 
 villain would only need to be sufficiently consistent in his villainy, and 
 he would win. He would only need to tear up half-a-dozen treaties — 
 only to pillage, burn, and murder with sufficient swiftness and resolution — 
 and he could laugh at the conseipieuces. The United States of Europe 
 will need a police force ; and such a police force can be supplied, perfectly 
 naturally, by simply extending a system of democratic defence which
 
 14 
 
 has already proved most successful withiu its own limited area. Let all 
 mxtious be armed, as all Contiuental Democracies now demand that they 
 should be armed, upon the Swiss system. 
 
 ** Mobilization means War.** 
 
 So says the German Chancellor, twice over, in the German White 
 Book, attempting thereby to justify himself. Russia (according to one- 
 sided assertions from Germany, which are as untrustworthy as all similar 
 statements from the same source) was the first to mobilize. Therefore — 
 although Russia publicly undertook to suspend her mobilization if only 
 Germany would consent to a European Conference on the Servian 
 question — therefore it was Russia who really began this war. 
 
 But the Swiss are there to show us that mobilization need not mean 
 war. At the news of the German ultimatum to Russia and France, 
 Switzerland decreed immediate mobilization. She had, in a week, 
 200,000 armed and trained men encamped on her frontiers, in a resolute 
 attitude of defence. Her population is only one-thirteenth of ours; 
 therefore, putting this effort into British figures, it would be as if we 
 had mobilized 2,600,000 trained men. All this was done without 
 coufusioD, and without violent strain. The wage-earners, though they 
 had no choice in the matter, went out upon that national duty in the 
 spirit of volunteers. Their wives bore their own heavy burden in the 
 same spirit in which British wives are bearing theirs. Young fellows, 
 whose own time of compulsory training had not yet come, volunteered 
 in great numbers. With the Swiss, as with us, political dissensions 
 disappeared immediately. As one of their newspapers put it : " Our 
 neutrality is guaranteed by the Powers ; but it is for us all to watch 
 over this guarantee with the utmost determination." At the little 
 German town of Lorrach, which the French might have reached in a 
 few hours' march if Switzerland had not been neutral, even the German 
 authorities posted up a proclamation, in the Kaiser's name, to the effect 
 that the inhabitants need fear no raid, " because Switzerland has 
 mobilized." This was at the moment when Germany was besieging 
 Liege, and when the German Chancellor was explaining to the world in 
 general that " mobilization means war." Swiss mobilization does not 
 mean war; it means peace. Swiss law compels every able-bodied man 
 to turn out in defence of his country ; and the Swiss War Minister, 
 instead of begging for half a million emergency-recruits, turns out more 
 than five times that number of trained men (in proportion to the popu- 
 lation) with a single stroke of his pen. But there is no law enabling 
 him to send any one of these men across the frontier : Swiss mobilization 
 is for peace. And that is why the democracies of Europe hope for the 
 Swiss defensive militia system as a solid stepping-stone to European 
 peace. The United States of Europe will be policed by national 
 defensive militias. We shall no longer say, " Germany has mobilized " 
 . ... (or perhaps, some other day, "Russia has mobilized ").... "and 
 mobilization means war." We shall say, " All the Powers are mobilizing, 
 and mobilization means peace." For, even at the maddest moments, 
 the greater part of Europe has always been reluctant to be dragged into 
 war ; and, if once the Swiss system became the rule, no merely aggressive 
 Power could hope to enforce its selfish will upon the vast defensive 
 organization of the majority.
 
 15 
 
 What killed religious warfare was not Christian charity, nor even 
 the most convincing abstract demonstrations that you can't change a 
 man's mind by burning him. Religious warfare only died when it 
 became manifestly impossible to exterminate your opponents in the 
 mass; when the opposing religious forces became so equally balanced 
 that even fanatics were obliged to despair of success. Then they 
 hesitated and calculated ; and, when once even the bitterest enemies 
 begin to calculate, then reason begins to do her work. When the 
 Roman Catholics in Germany, and the Protestants in Great Britain, 
 found it impossible to exterminate their religious enemies altogether, 
 tlien they began to consider whetiier it would be even a Christian thing 
 to persecute them at all. 
 
 Duelling, again, was not killed merely (or even mainly) by the most 
 convincing arguments or by the keenest shafts of ridicule. The final 
 determining factor was the businesslike action of the police. When the 
 duellist found that, having escaped his opponent's pistol, he would run 
 even greater risk from the hangman's rope, then he began to listen to 
 argument, and to see the folly of a false code of honour. 
 
 Peace in Theory and Practice. 
 
 Jaures saw this practical side of the question very clearly ; he knew 
 that international burglary could only be put down by a strong inter- 
 national police. In his scheme of an armed nation, all schoolboys are to 
 begin their military training at the age often years, and he insists upon 
 the moral value of such training. Boys would thus, he argues, grow up 
 with a widening and deepening consciousness of their own share in the 
 National Militia, which aims at " securing, not only their national inde- 
 pendence, but also the peace of the world, and a new era of exalted 
 human justice, composed of the freedom of all nations alike" {L'Arme'e 
 Xouvelle, p. 277). And certainly this is borne out, not only by Swiss, but 
 even by French experience. The same observation was made by other 
 travellers who, like myself, were forced to find our way home through 
 France during the days of mobilization. The absence of Jingoism was 
 most remarkable ; there was no pretence of wanting to go out and kill 
 Germans, but there was a steady determination to fight this war out in 
 defence of France. Tfie whole spirit was as different as po.ssible from 
 that which France had shown before 1870, when only about a quarter of 
 her able-bodied population were trained in arms. In Paris, the declara- 
 tion of war produced no such " mafficking" as we heard of in London ; 
 and, even at the present moment, such French daily papers as I see are 
 less sensational than our own. This last point, by itself, might give 
 pause to those who imagine that military training develops the irre- 
 sponsible combative instincts in man, and that real peaceableness of soul 
 can be secured by blinking all possibilities of war until the last moment. 
 The most professionally pacificist British paper has been the Da'ibj Xeii's 
 and Leader — the mo.st aggressively pacifici-st paper, we may even call it. 
 It is owned (if report be true) by members of the Society of Friends, 
 and depends largely at all times upon Quaker support. Yet the Hrst 
 thing I saw on landing at Folkestone was " Daily News and Leader — 
 Late War Edition!" Here, again, are a few recent headlines from 
 this pacificist paper, taken almost at random : "Great Austrian Carnage!" 
 — " Slaughter in East Prussia ! "— " Thrilling Story of North Sea Fight :
 
 16 
 
 the Enemy's Heavy Losses: Drowning German Sailors Shot by their 
 Officers ! "— " Glorious Achievements : Casualties 6000 : Routed Germans 
 Speared by Lancers and Scots Greys ! " Its War Correspondent, for the 
 honour of his paper, represents himself as prying more closely into the 
 tiohting line, and discovering aiore butchery, than other coircspondents. 
 Editors are generally credited with knowing pretty well what their 
 public wants. If this be so, there can be little doubt that the average 
 French newspaper is written for people who take a more sober estimate 
 oi the realities of war than the people who look to the Daily News for 
 their mental nourishment; and this, in spite of the greater natural 
 excitability of the French temperament. Here again, Jaures would 
 seem to have been abundantly right. He insisted that the armed man 
 has generally a more serious sense of responsibility than the unarmed ; 
 that it is not so easy to talk of shooting when there are really rifles 
 about, and when the talker might theretore be taken literally at Ids 
 word (pp. 283 — 5). Some of the least " militarized " nations in these 
 days are among those which show the worst yearly murder-bills. 12 
 
 Let us have the Truth. 
 
 It is not the present writer's aim to prove that any measure must 
 necessarily be good for Great Britain, even though in all Continental 
 countries an overwhelming proportion of the voters approve it. Con- 
 tinental nations might accept it, and experience might thoroughly 
 justify their acceptance, and yet it might conceivably not suit us. I 
 hope (as the large majority of my readers doubtless hope) that we 
 shall get through this war without having to fall back upon compidsory 
 recruiting. The quarrel came at a moment when the mobilization of our 
 fleet wasdmost complete. The brunt of the war fell first upon Belgium, 
 and by far the heaviest burden of the land-fighting is still being borne 
 by our allies. On this occasion, we may not unreasonably hope for a 
 sufficiently long respite, to turn our emergency-recruits into soldiers of 
 the same value as those who have already fought so splendidly. When 
 once these are fit to send to the front, such fresh troops may well turn 
 the scale of victory finally and decisively against the Kaiser. Moreover, 
 the war might conceivably end even before this, though we know how 
 mad it would be to count upon ariy such good fortune. We have good 
 reason to hope, therefore, that we shall pull through this time. But, 
 when this war is over, it is not likely that Great Britain will choose 
 to go on in the old comfortable rut of " We run no risk." The question 
 of National Defence will then come up for serious discussion ; and the 
 nation will not have forgotten, what it sees now at last, that even our 
 Navy cannot do its best unless our land forces are sufficient. At that 
 future time of national stock-taking, it will be of vital importance that 
 the British voter shall have realized wliat the Continental democracies 
 actually think about the policing of Europe, and what their actual ex- 
 perience has been. The falsehoods which have been dinned into our 
 workmen's ears for so long, must be shown up now without delay; 
 for now is the moment when the public will listen; when even 
 unwelcome truths can get a hearing ; when error can no longer shelter 
 it.self behind its floating mines, but mu.st come out to fight in the open, 
 or be beaten without a fight. Let us get our facts true, and we shall 
 doubtless come, in due course, to some right conclusion. If we can dis-
 
 17 
 
 cover some better method of securing European peace than the Continent 
 has yet dreanjt of, by all means let us lead the way. But let us no longer 
 boast of our conservatism as if it were Progress, or of our ignorance as 
 if it were Enlightenment. Before we finally reject the ideal of Jean 
 Jaures, let us at least have taken the trouble to understand it. Let us 
 no longer delude ourselves with complacent falsehoods about that great 
 man, who not only led the world's democratic progress, but who sealed 
 his faith with his blood. 
 
 "The Armed Nation is the Just Nation." 
 
 So says Jaures on p. Go of his Arm^e Nouvelle, and this sums up 
 the argument of his whole book. In a later stage of progress (he says; 
 we may do without armies altogether; in the present stage, a country 
 open to invasion is a country where social progress is unsafe (pp. 5, 6). 
 The Hague Tribunal, and other similar efforts for arbitration, are of 
 great value, but are not enough to ensure peace (p. 8). French national 
 character will be ennobled " when every citizen has understood, in his 
 newer consciousness, the necessity and the beauty of military duties 
 freed from all taint of caste or class-spirit, freed from every violent spirit 
 of conquest, and concentrated on this one sublime object, THE PRO- 
 TECTION OF NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE IN ORDER THAT SOCIAL JUSTICE 
 MAY FOLLOW ITS FREE DEVELOPMENT" (p. 273: Capitals his). A 
 thorough system of universal drill in schools, followed by the universal 
 enrolment of able-bodied citizens, will prove a most valuable factor in 
 civic education (chaps. 8 to 10). "Military science is an essential part 
 of the system of human knowledge," and therefore it must be taught 
 at the universities, and also promising lads from the elementary 
 schools must be enabled, by a system of scholarship.s, to study as officers 
 (p. 385). A young man whose position or attainments mark him out 
 for promotion, but who is still content to serve as a private, will lose 
 some measure of public respect (p. 580). A working-class which per- 
 manently stands outside the national army system will be committing 
 political suicide; the Democracy must show its real strength by demo- 
 cratizing the forces of national defence (pp. 443 — 44). This policy, in 
 times of labour conflict, will not weaken but strengthen the working- 
 classes (pp. 384, 445 — 49) : it will give them not only a stronger external 
 position, but more of that self-control which is essential to victory. The 
 excuse that it doesn't matter to the workman whether he lives under a 
 French or a German master " is too absurd to argue with." " A working- 
 class which has shirked the duty of defending national independence 
 (and, with that independence, its own freetlom of development) will 
 never be strong enoiigh to tight successfully against capitalism " (p. 450). 
 A real Armed Nation in this sense is strong, without being militarist 
 (pp. (io, 71, '^85, 325, 432—33, 442—43). In war it will be animated 
 by the true volunteer spirit, since it is only one form of expression of 
 the national will (p. (522). And it will have the most sustaining of 
 convictions, that of tlie righteousness of its own cause; since a nation 
 democratically organized cannot be brought into the field except for a 
 truly national cau.se, and since every citizen will have been taught, from 
 his boyhood, that liis military training is not for conquest, but for inter- 
 national police work : not to destroy tlie work of the theoretical pacificist, 
 but to lend to pacificism that practical support which alone can enable 
 theory to bear its full fruit in action.
 
 IS 
 
 Stale=Mate in War. 
 
 It would seem hardly credible, and yet it is true, that attempts have 
 been made to attack this theory of Jaures's as selt-destructive. Wise- 
 acres have argued, " If we are all to arm millions in self-defence, while no 
 nation is to be offensively armed, then we arrive at a patent absurdity. 
 Against whom shall we then be arming?" In one sense this is true, 
 in*the sense that we should finally reduce war to a patent absurdity. 
 But who will quarrel with that ? How can we better destroy a thing 
 than by proving it absurd even to the dullest mind ? In no other sense 
 is Jaures's proposal absurd. 
 
 (1) To begin with, the United States of Europe would not yet be 
 the United States of the World; there would still be potential enemies 
 outside. Europe would still need collective military security in order to 
 protect its own free social development. (2) And again, some time must 
 pass before we could feel certain that this system of national militias 
 had assured even the internal security of Europe. Nations could always 
 raise volunteer expeditionary forces. We ourselves have raised half-a- 
 million for this war, and the Germans are probably right in claiming 
 that they have more than twice that number of volunteers. Years and 
 years of peaceful reconstitution would be necessary, before we could be 
 sure that the defensive forces of Europe were sufficient to meet any 
 spirit of military adventure whatever. For a whole generation, perhaps, 
 ambitious statesmen might cherish a hope of successful brigandage, 
 throuoh the sudden action of a formidable coalition, such as this present 
 coalitfon of Austria and Germany. But such hopes would become fainter 
 and fainter, as the mass of Europe settled down more steadily to the idpal 
 of purely defensive preparations for war. A whole new world of defensive 
 tactics and inventions would gradually take the place of the present 
 militarist spirit. The Nations in Arms, as Jaures often claimed, would 
 be the Democracies trained to defend their own visible interests; the 
 working classes would no longer merely desire peace, but would also have 
 in their hands the means of securing peace.i^ The spirit which makes 
 for a policy of military adventure would lose its vital force, even in a 
 country like Prussia. It would become more and more hopeless to per- 
 suade any nation that its honour or its interest demanded the invasion 
 of another nation. A permanent and voluntarily-recruited force of 
 1.50,000 men, however perfectly trained, would be utterly inadequate to 
 overwhelm, by any sudden surprise, even a third-rate state. Any 
 further call of volunteers to arms, beyond such an ordinary peace- 
 establishment, would at once betray its own purpose, and give the 
 peace-loving states ample time for defensive preparation. The strongest 
 Power could never be lured on, as Germany has been, by the hope that 
 Belfium could be overrun in a few days, and France crushetl within the 
 next few weeks by a sudden and treacherous attack. The idea of smashing 
 Great Britain by an equally sudden and treacherous stroke — which we now 
 know to be no mere figment of the British scaremonger, but an idea 
 caressed even by many civilians in Germany— -would become patently 
 absurd if Germany had only a small expeditionary army, and if we had 
 two-and-a-half-million defenders, to be mobilized at a week's notice, and 
 lono- familiarized with every problem of home defence. Then, after a 
 geu° ration or more, Europe might begin to feel her preparations absurdly 
 cautious. At that point, a further reduction of armaments would be
 
 10 
 
 possible. But, until that time comes, lot us rather be cautious even to 
 absurdity. This would be better, at least, than the contrary absurdity of 
 those British civilians who have long cried down their military experts 
 as scaremongers, and who now run into still worse violence of language 
 against the German p]mperor and his advisers. 
 
 England has not always been so boastful, and so unprepared, as she 
 has been during these last thirty years. Lord Haldane, with a very 
 startling ignorance of our own past history, spoke recently as if we had 
 just "muddled through" under Elizabeth, and had beaten off" the 
 Spanish Armada without any special preparation The fact is, that 
 Harrison, a very trustworthy author, writing in 1587, estimated our 
 force of armed citizens in that year at 1,172,()74 men, each parish being 
 ready to turn out " within an hour's warning."" There were critics, 
 even in this Elizabethan England, who thought such preparations over- 
 done. But such critics were met with one word of sturdy comrnon-.sense 
 from a preacher of that time : " If these Spaniards come, then is our 
 labour well spent; if they come not, it is labour well lost." 
 
 " Better to be Safe than Sorry." 
 
 This is a sailor's proverb which we may well take to heart. Great 
 Britain, which might have been safe, is now sorry. So far are we from 
 being fully prepared for this war, that our organization is now actually 
 breakini'- down under the stress of sending off the thousands of new 
 recruits' to their different training-camps, of giving them proper food and 
 lodi'ing, and of supplying them even with soap and water! And those 
 who had taken the trouble to face these facts beforehand are now saying 
 with Mr. Robert Blatchford, not " I told you so ! " but " Tlicy told 30U so! " 
 Many of our most distinguislucl men had repeated the warning again 
 and again ; but you preferred to hear flattering lies The majority of 
 independent military and naval experts told you so. Even the politicians 
 told you so plainly enough, if only you had weighed their words as you 
 weioii other peopk^'s words when you really want to get at the truth — 
 when you know that your own self-interest depends on getting at the 
 truth ! The very hesitations and paltering excuses of our officials told 
 you so. Even Lord Haldane told you so, as clenrly as any lawyer and 
 professional politician ever tells an unpalatable truth to the voter on 
 whom he depends. He promised you "a Nation in Arms" of from 
 7()().()0() to i)()(),0()0 trained Territorials. A few months later, he told 
 you that 815,000 would be (piite enough. When he found that the 
 recruitino- fell short even of this figure by more than 50,000, then he 
 told you ''that 2(50,000 would be enough. He told you how admirable 
 was your National Spirit for supplying even these volunteers; and how 
 magniticently the ijuality would make up for any deficiency in (piantity : 
 and how we might some day get even our 315,000; anil how, after six 
 months of wai-training, these men would actually be fit to do real 
 fightini--! If your creditor li;ul put you off' Wkv this in money matters, 
 falliuo- back from one excuse to another, would you have believed him ? 
 If he had i)roniist'd you £7, would you have been content with less than 
 £:3, and believed that the excellent quality of these particular three 
 sovereigns would somehow make up for the missing £4? Moreover, all 
 this while, Lortl Hahlane scarcely ever made a speech in favour of the 
 Voluntary System, without putting in a sentence or two which suggested
 
 20 
 
 to every careful reader that the Voluntary System could no more secure 
 efficient national defence than it had secured efficient national education. 
 He carefully sugared the pill, of course ; and you carefully sucked off 
 the sugar and spat out the pill. But, in his own sleek way, he told you 
 the truth almost as plainly as Herr Krupp and the German Emperor 
 were telling it after their own fashion ; only you would not see it; you 
 preferred to be deceived. Those who then refused to be sale are now 
 openly sorry. 
 
 Hitherto, however, the British working-classes have had a reasonable 
 excuse for ignoring facts that are faced by all the Continental working- 
 classes. Bntons have been intent upon other things, and things of the 
 utmost importance. Their leaders, whom they trusted, have not only 
 concealed vital truths, but have also told plain falsehoods— uninten- 
 tionally, of course, but none the less mischievously and suicidally. 
 Those falsehoods are dying easily enough now, for the nation is at last 
 in earnest. A whole new horizon opens out now before the British 
 workincr-man. He will now ask himself, without prejudice, whether 
 real social progress is possible without national defence; and whether 
 national defence can be secured by any country whose Democracy will 
 not make this bu.siness their own. Compulsory service may not logically 
 follow even then. If any system more efficient and truly democratic can 
 be devised, let us by all means have this other system for Great Britain 
 But at lea.st, in our search for that kind of army which shall best express 
 the people's will, which best shall mould the people's character, and 
 which best shall secure the people's tranquillity — at least, in this our 
 search, let us remember the words which Jaures applied to nil European 
 nations except our own. " In every country," he wrote, " the whole 
 instinct and reflection of the working-classes runs against [the voluntary 
 system]. Everywhere it is the working-man, the Socialist, who demands 
 military service for the whole population " (p. 444). 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 1 The Labour Leader for August 27th gives its approval to what it calls "a 
 Remarkable Letter," ii> which the writer says, " We know now that Belgian inde- 
 pendence was guaranteed by Germany, and is in no danger." On the same page is an 
 article by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald discussing the causes of the war, and claiming " to 
 o-o right down to the foundation of things." In his three columns of jjrint, Mr. 
 Macdonald does not even mention the word Belgium. 
 
 2 There is an exact parallel in the life of the Kaiser's ancestor, Frederick the Great, 
 upon wliose unscrupulous policy most of the present German government is modelled : 
 " At length he sent her (Maria Theresa) a message which could be regarded only as an 
 insult. If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he said, stand by her against 
 any power which should try to deprive her of her other dominions; as if he was not 
 already hound to stand hy her, or its if his neio promise could he of more value than 
 the old one." — Macaulay, Frederic the Great. 
 
 3 This has, of course, been seized upon by the Germans. The Times of Sept. 16th 
 gives, under the heading of " Fictions against Great Britain," the following Marconi 
 news from Berlin. " A violent manilcsto has been issued by the Independent Labour 
 Party of Great Britain, declaring that Great liritain is fighting neither on behalf of an 
 oppressed nation nor on behalf of Belgian neutrality." Yet this particular piece of news 
 is, as the reader has seen, only too true ; for once there was no need in Berlin to mistate 
 the facts ; the I.L.P. circular served their purpose without the least exaggeration.
 
 21 
 
 * The official manifesto of tlie Italian Socialists to the German Socialist delegates 
 puts tliis homo-truth very hluntly ; it is printed fully in I'llumanite for Scjjt. 7th, and 
 more briefly in tlie Manchester Guardian for Sept. 14th. "The victory of tlie Kaiser," 
 says this Italian manifesto, " wouhJ mean the victory of German militarism, against 
 wliich German Socialism has been unable to figlit ; tor it has contented itself with gain- 
 ing a few electoral successes and a few material advantages, without exercising any real 
 political influence in Gerniany." Compare 'Vhc Times for Sei)t. 25th : "The Socialist 
 party at i^eipzig state that 10,835 members, 26 per cent, of the total membership, are 
 at the front. Michael Schwartz, the Socialist leader, has been decorated with the Iron 
 Cross." 
 
 * Daily Citizen, Se\)t. 9th, 1914: "Was there an international movement called 
 Socialism ?" . . . Whatever there was, a word spoken by one man dissolved it into war- 
 ring elements and thin air. It is exactly as if there had been no such organisation and 
 no such movement. When one admits that the dream of world-fraternity has not pre- 
 vented war, not even in the least degree embarassed those who made war, not changed 
 anything, the worst is still unsaid. Its prophet-interpreters go to war like other men 
 one against another, Liebknecht against Vandervelde. Thai means more. Socialism 
 not only did not count, but could not have deserved to count. Its reputation of war was 
 a sentiment too weak, and without guidance, clearly." {Article by K. Snowden). 
 
 ^ This was printed in full in VHumanite for Sept. t3th. It does not seem to have 
 found its way into British papers. It is a document of great force and dignity, far 
 more restiained, and far less mortifying to German pride, than the very outspoken 
 Socialist manifesto from neutral Italy. 
 
 ^ (A) Statement approved as correct by all my informants in Belgium, without 
 exception, and translated in the text of this pamphlet : 
 
 II y a plus de 30 ans que le parti liberal en Belgique reclame le service militaire 
 obligatoire et generalise. ^ -i • 
 
 Cette reclamation a fait partie de la plateforme liberale aux dernieres elections 
 (1912) ; mais le parti consevvateur y a alors resiste de toutes ses forces. 
 
 Toutefois, s'etant maintenu au pouvoir en 1912, le parti conservateur a du envisager 
 autrement les choses; et c'est lui qui a vote la loi du service militaire obligatoire (sauf 
 exemptions confessionnelles), avec I'aide d'une partie de I'opposition liberale, qui a 
 cependant protests contre les exemptions non-justifiees. 
 
 Le parti socialiste a accepte aussi le principe, tout en reclamant des modifications 
 tres importantes (service de six mois, avancement democratique d'officiers, etc., etc.) ; 
 en un mot, I'ideal du parti socialiste, c'est la " nation armee," on prenant pour modele 
 la milice suisse. Mais, une fois arrive la, le parti socialiste n'a pas la moindre idee de 
 detruire les principes de 1) I'obligation et 2) I'universalitc^. II soutient le systome 
 Suisse comine minimum, en attendant la possibilite de I'arbitrage et du desarmement 
 general; et il admet, avec le parti liberal, que, tant qu'il faiulra une armee (juelconque, 
 il faut bicn que cette armee comprenne toute la population, sauf les exceptions 
 necessaires pour cause de faiblesse physic jue, ou de soutiens de famille. 
 
 Une fois votee, la loi n'a plus rencontre d'opposition serieuse en principe; le pays 
 entier s'y est facileinent resigne, hormis I'opposition socialiste, qui se base sur le systome 
 de la " nation armee" (systenie suisse). . . 
 
 II n'y a surtout aucune association ouvriere liberale ou socialiste qui ait combattu 
 le principe de la loi. Les associations qui I'ont combattu, sout des a.ssociations 
 conservatrices. 
 
 En eflet, les associations conservatrices, bourgeoises ou ouvrieres, ont de tout temps 
 combattu le service militaire generalise. Et, si elles ont cesse cette onposition en_1912, 
 ce n'est qu'entraiuees par la force des choses, ainsi que ses elus Tout dt<clare u la 
 Chambre des Representants. 
 
 (H) Names of informants : 
 
 Belgium.-Tlnve Deputies, viz., .M.M. Ed. Anseele (Soc), Albert Mechelynck (Rad.) 
 and Georges Lorand (Had.); two Professors at the University of Ghent, both members 
 of the Ka.lical Party, MM. Paul Fredoricq and II. Pirenne: and the following other 
 gentlemen : the Secretary of the Liberal Association of Ghent : M. Arthur \ erschraegen, 
 Provincial Councillor and Secretary to the Ghent branch of the Belgian Labour 1 arty : 
 .AI. A. van Werveke, Administrator of the three museums at Ghent ; the two well-known 
 Ghent bookseUers, MM. de Taveruier (22, rue Courte du Jour) and van Goethem (1, rue
 
 22 
 
 des Fouloiis); the Couoierge of the Maison du Peuple (Socialist Headquarters) at 
 Brussels. 
 
 France. — M. Albert Thomas, Deputy lor the Chanipigny division of the Seine; 
 Coniuiandant llossel, Military Correspondent oi I' Humanity ; M. Ed. Nimier, Professor 
 of Physics at the Lycee of St. Oraer, and a prominent member of the lladical-Socialist 
 partj' in that town. 
 
 In addition to these well-known gentlemen, I showed the above printed statement 
 of the Socialist attitude to many casual fellow-travellers, waiters at hotels, etc., and was 
 everywhere assured that the statement was correct. Dr. Paul Hanielius's version on 
 p. 25 of his " Siege of Liege " (Werner Laurie, 1914, 1a-.) is very misleading here. It 
 is true that the King, in the last resort, broke down Conservative resistance to National 
 Defence in 1913 by warning the ministry plainly that Belgium could not count entirely 
 upon the Powers' guarantees for her neutrality, but must also be able to defend herself. 
 Yet the King could have done notliing but for tlie fact that the Liberal party had been 
 hammering at this subject for thirty years, and had taken all the odium of being held 
 up as " militarists " before the electorate. My frontispiece gives a facsimile of two 
 pictures which, published by the Conservatives, did much to secure the Liberal defeat at 
 the elections of 1912, especially in tlie less educated country districts. Yet, when the 
 victorious Conservatives proceeded to " dish the Whigs " by bringing in, as a ministry, 
 a proposal for compulsory service almost identical with that which the}' had combated 
 at the elections, the Liberals, as a party, showed their patriotism b}' supporting the 
 government. The only important difference between the two proposals was, that the 
 Conservatives exempt about five per cent, of the able-bodied youths from service, mainly 
 for religious reasons. Bearing this in mind, the reader will better understand what Dr. 
 Haraelius saj's on p. 27 about the abuses of the old semi-voluntary system. 
 
 Coming to his description of this present war, the author is far more plain-spoken. 
 On pp. 51 — 54 he writes: "Never was the need for military training in a nation more 
 sadly exemplified than in the rise of national pride and anguish that the German 
 challenge called forth among us. We all wanted to be useful, and envied our lucky 
 soldiers who knew their place and duty. But the larger part of our manhood was 
 without guidance and knowledge. The younger men could enlist, and did so in large 
 numbers. All classes, from the aristocracy to the people, showed themselves worth 
 their salt. At best it meant six weeks' training near Antwerp before they were fit to 
 take the field. And we all knew that six weeks' delay was fatal. Thej' went all the 
 
 same The most tragic example of the breakdown of untrained goodwill in 
 
 the face of a sudden emergency was that of the civil guard Let this be a warning 
 
 to men who think it sufficient to love their country, without learning in times of peace 
 
 how to defend it in times of danger In half a century's time the Liegeois 
 
 will still remember with loathing that he, or some one of his people, has once been 
 compelled to keep the pigs and cows for the German army." 
 
 ' This was expressly stated in the official manifesto of the Swiss Socialist Party 
 during the recent mobilization, printed in the Berner Tagwacht for Aug. 3rd. " We 
 have never" (it says) "combated our Militia System in itself." 
 
 ' For instance, he was convinced that an unprovoked attack of Germany upon 
 Britain would at once cause a revolution among German Socialists, who w'ould rise in 
 arms against their own Government ; a belief common enough until recently among us, 
 but very rare among Swiss Labour Leaders. 
 
 '" Germany also at this moment is raising very large numbers of volunteers — the 
 Times military correspondent, usually well informed, says 1,250,000 — and she is laugh- 
 ing with some justice at our Pharisaical boast that Britain alone has the true Volunteer 
 spirit. 
 
 " One of the worst offenders here is Mr. C. P. Trevelyan, late Parliamentary Secre- 
 tary to the Board of Education, in his pamphlet entitled Democracy and Compulsory 
 Service. As he refused a public discussion with me, I was obliged to expose his 
 methods in a counter-pamphlet entitled True Liberalism and Compulsory Service 
 (Miles and Co., 68 Wardour Street, price \d., or 2d. post free). An honourable excep- 
 tion to Liberal silence on this subject maj' be found in the Nation for May 26th, 1911, 
 which contains a favourable review of Jaures's book. 
 
 '* Of aH the white races, by far the least militarized are the United States of 
 America. Here only about one in 200 of the population is armed in peace time ; in 
 Great Britain the proportion is one in 70. Yet murders in the U.S.A. are more than
 
 23 
 
 three times more numerous, in proportion to the population, tlian in Great Britain, and 
 nearly three times as numeruus as in Germany (Mulhall, Dictionary of Statistics, 
 1899, pp. 102, 172). Of great world-nationa, China is by far the least militarized; only 
 ono person in 2,000 bears arms in times of peace. Yet there is scarcely any nation in 
 which human life is so cheap as in China. Here, for instance, is an extract from th« 
 Baity Citizen of Dec. 11th, 1913: 
 
 "Men's Lives at £6 each. 
 
 "According to a list of indemnities for the loss of life and property during the 
 recent rebellion at Shanghai, the life of an adult person in China is valued at £6 . . . 
 
 " A list of compensations for the district round Shanghai has been sanctioned by 
 Yuan Shi Kai, the President . . . 
 
 " 38 adults at £6 each ; 6 children at £3 each ; 11 seriously wounded at £4 each ; 
 9 slightly wounded at £2 each. Thus the death of a child is accounted of less import- 
 ance than the wounding of a man." 
 
 Compare this with a few sentences from Jack's "New Encyclopedia," p. 358: 
 " Infanticide was at one time extremely common (in China), especially in the case of 
 girls, most families killing all their offspring except two boys and one girl. This state 
 of things has recently improved ; and, as a rule, young children are not murdered 
 except in times of famine." 
 
 '^ From an article by Edouard Vaillant, " father " of the Socialist group in the 
 French Parliament, in L' Humanite for Sept. 16th, 1914 : 
 
 Vaillant begins by complaining that other political parties, noting the hearty 
 unanimity with which the Socialists are throwing themselves into the present war, are 
 beginning to suggest that Socialism is repenting of its opposition to the Three Years' 
 Training Bill. To this he replies that his party intends to support the country through 
 thick and thin until this war is ended, and then to resume its campaign for a One-Year 
 Defensive Militia System. He writes: 
 
 " Then we will begin again to preach our own ideas, unchanged in their essence, 
 but developed by the history and the criticism of this present war. We will then show 
 the incomparable value of these ideas for the defensive organization of the country on 
 the principle of a "Nation in Arms," drilled from its youth upwards, without inter- 
 ruption, until the citizen's fiftieth year, and organized in a militia which will include all 
 able-bodied citizens without exception. We shall thus bring into play, for national 
 defence, no longer a part of the population only (however great that part may be), but 
 the whole foices of the nation, down to the last man. We will then explain the full 
 value of an organization on the Swiss model, better and more democratic than our 
 present system, and resting upon a methodical fortilication of the frontier, in combi- 
 nation with which it will render all invasion impossible. And here again we repeat 
 that which poor Jaures and I used to maintain on this subject. For we are certain that 
 this truth, embodying the military b:\sis of a democratic defensive policy, must soon be 
 universally recognized, and must be applied tliroughout a Europe delivered from the 
 tyranny and from the evils of militarism. The democracies of Europe, having con- 
 quered Imperialism, will democratize their army systems, as they will democratize their 
 political and social systems." 
 
 These last sentences ai'e especially noteworthy. For Vaillant, as for Jaurfee, a 
 democratic system of compulsory service does not spell militarism, but the opposite of 
 militarism. The Swiss system is the ideal held up to the democracies of Europe, when 
 they shall have broken down the present reign of brute force. 
 
 '* Elizabethan England. Ed. by F. J. Furnivall. (Walter Scott & Co. pp* 
 224 — 25.) It is very likely that Harrison has here exaggerated somewhat; but of the 
 main facts there can bo no doubt. 
 
 J. rALMER, PRINTER, ALEXANDRA STREET, CAMBRIDGE
 
 "Iff 
 
 ^/^ 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482 

 
 UC SOUTHER'; 
 
 AA 000 586 779 
 
 ^^"7^b5 00397 3300 
 
 f-^