Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Dave Morgan and the PG Online Distributed
Proofreading Team.
Rebuilding Britain
A Survey of Problems of Reconstruction after the World War
By
Sir Alfred Hopkinson, K.C.
Cassell and Company, Ltd
London, New York and Melbourne
1918
CONTENTS
Part I.--The Course
1. ASPIRATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS
Part II.--Peace
A.--INTERNATIONAL PEACE
2. LEAGUE OF NATIONS--THE NEED
3. LEAGUE OF NATIONS--THE SCHEME
4. LEAGUE OF NATIONS--THE CONDITIONS
5. LEAGUE OF NATIONS--ITS SCOPE AND AIM
6. CONCLUSIONS REACHED
7. VICTORY AND PEACE
B.--POLITICAL PEACE
8. PEACE AND THE CONSTITUTION
9. PEACE AND DEMOCRACY
C.--INDUSTRIAL PEACE
10. INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS
11. LONG HOURS
12. WAGES
D.--RELIGIOUS PEACE
13. CO-OPERATION
Part III.--Retrenchment
14. STATE EXPENDITURE AND INCOME
15. NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Part IV.--Reform
16. THE FIELD
17. RESTORATION OF LAW AND LIBERTY
18. RESTORATION OF INDUSTRY
19. HOUSING
20. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
21. AFFORESTATION
22. LAW REFORM
23. PURIFICATION OF POLITICAL LIFE
Part V.--The Goal
24. UNION AND REGENERATION
Part I
THE COURSE
CHAPTER I
ASPIRATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS
_I think I see, as it were above the hill-tops of time,
the glimmerings of the dawn of a better and a nobler day
for the country and the people that I love so
well._--JOHN BRIGHT.
The suggestion has been made to me that in these days of rapid
development, when proposals, so bewildering in their extent, for change
and for reconstruction are being made, it would be useful to present in
popular form and in the compass of a small volume some general statement
of the character of the varied problems which have arisen and of the
principles which should guide in their solution. Possibly it seemed that
a long and varied life engaged in law, politics, and education, which
also had touched to some slight extent on the actual work of certain
departments of Government, and had offered opportunities for travel in
European countries and in the East, might furnish some qualifications
for such a task. It is not one that can be undertaken without a sense of
inadequate knowledge, and still more inadequate power of expression; but
such a challenge cannot be refused, provided that whoever accepts it
believes that he has some things to say which ought to be said, some
lines of thought which ought to be indicated, something to urge, the
truth of which he is thoroughly convinced of. Without such conviction
prevenient, "we doubt not" that books on serious subjects, even if
clever, and public speech either from platform or pulpit, "do verily
have the nature of sin," and the more eloquent they are the worse the
offence; with it, the very incompleteness and imperfection in the mode
of presentation may even stimulate others to more thought, and to make
up deficiencies all the better for themselves.
In attempting such a task, it must be recognised that during the last
three years the attention of so many minds has been devoted to problems
of "reconstruction" after the War, so much has been written and said
about them, so many suggestions made and schemes propounded, so many
commissions of inquiry appointed and reports prepared, that an attempt
at full treatment of the questions involved would require a cyclopaedia
rather than a small volume. No one person would be able ever to read
half of the valuable material already collected bearing on these
problems. To deal effectively with them all would demand several
lifetimes of preliminary special training. The difficulty is increased
by the fact that every week brings something new or some change in the
situation. Some new fact comes to light, some book or article is
published, some speech made, some report issued, or even some Act
passed, which calls for consideration, and it may be for comment.
The effect of the War has undoubtedly been to evoke far more serious
thought on the real problems of life, and also practical activity in
dealing with many of them. The mass of literature, including of course
the considered utterances of men whose words exercise the most influence
in moulding the opinions and guiding the action of others, grows from
day to day. If that literature consisted mainly of bitter and empty
controversy, of the expression of mere opinions, the spinning of
plausible theories or clever presentation of interesting speculations,
it would not be necessary to trouble much about it; but so large a part
contains the statement of important facts or the results of serious
study and of the actual experience of those who are experts in the
special subjects of which they treat, that it is impossible to pass
lightly over what they write or say. There is about a large portion of
this literature an air of reality, an earnest desire to get to the
heart of a matter, to contribute to true knowledge of the various
subjects to which the writers have devoted their attention and to find a
practical solution of the problems involved. Sensationalism or mere
writing for effect is the exception, not the general characteristic of
what is thus being constantly published on various aspects of national
reconstruction.
It is inevitable, therefore, that in any attempt to treat the subject as
a whole some important suggestions will appear to have been overlooked
or neglected, and that valuable sources of information and useful
proposals will have escaped notice, while in other cases there will
appear to be repetition, even without acknowledgment of what has already
been said, and said better by others.
The justification for the attempt made in the following pages is that
there are many people who have not the time or inclination to follow up
special questions fully, but may be glad of a summary, and that a mere
sketch-plan of the whole ground to be covered, filled in here and there
in more detail, may have its use as a kind of bird's-eye view by which
the relations of a number of subjects to each other and the general
character of each may be seen.
For convenience of treatment and as an aid to memory the various
problems to be discussed are arranged under three heads; following the
old Victorian watchwords of the party which claimed to be
progressive--Peace, Retrenchment, Reform.
The policy once indicated by these terms may in many cases have been
discarded, and no doubt they were often used in a sense very different
from that in which they must serve in our classification. "Peace" and
"Retrenchment" have been used to cover a policy which by reducing the
Navy would have left us naked to our enemies and a prey to starvation
within a few months from the outbreak of war; "Reform" to denote changes
which pedantry or envy may urge, but which could lead to no useful
practical result. In spite of this, the three words do in fact, like
the words Liberty, Equality, Fraternity--whatever crimes may have been
committed in their name--indicate and express three ideas that we must
have definitely before us in considering what the lines of
reconstruction ought to be.
The spirit--the tone of mind in which the work of reconstruction is
approached--will count for much. First of all, it is essential to have
hope--a real expectation not only that by strenuous effort and wise
foresight the country will meet and overcome the trials which are
inevitable, and the perils which threaten after as well as during the
War, but also that a better and brighter future is in store. Plans must
be framed and action taken under the inspiration of a firm trust that
the ideals we aim at are to be realised, that the "things hoped for"
have a potential actuality. Fatalism in politics--we use the term in the
original sense including ethics--is deadly, whether it is the fatalism
due to a sloppy optimism which is satisfied that somehow things will
come right whatever we do or leave undone, or to a paralysing pessimism
which in cowardly despair accepts the triumph of evil as ordained and
gives up the struggle when the prospects of victory seem dark. It would
be folly not to recognise that not only now, but for years to come there
will be enormous difficulties and terrible dangers to be faced; but it
is possible for our hearts and minds to be filled too much with the
contemplation of them instead of looking to the goal we aim at, and the
steps we must take one by one to reach it.
Be not over-exquisite
To cast the fashion of uncertain evils.
What need a man forestall his date of grief
And run to meet what he would most avoid?
There may be rocks and breakers--"a ferment of revolution"--ahead, but
the task of the pilot and the crew is to keep their eyes on the channel
through them, and to work the ship in its course to the haven where they
would be.
Secondly, there must be a faith to inspire action, based on a belief in
an essential goodness of human nature and in its capacity for
improvement. Unless such a belief were well founded, democracy would be
a thing to be dreaded and resisted by every means in our power. As
ground for his belief in a better day, Bright speaks--and his language
is prophetic--of the people "sublime in their resolution." It is that
resolution which, in spite of our unprepared condition and of all the
mistakes that have been made, as well as of disasters that could not
have been foreseen, and of a power in the enemy far greater and a
wickedness more diabolical than anyone dreamed of, will "bring victory
home."
To have watched the action of the electorate during the last fifty years
leads to the conclusion that in spite of apparent vacillations it has
been characterised by good sense and good feeling, and that its
judgment, so far as conditions from time to time permitted of its true
expression, has been sound. To go about the country now and see what
earnest and useful work is being quietly done, what loss and suffering
bravely borne, confirms and renews the trust in our fellow-countrymen
which might be shaken if we listened only to the utterances in the Press
and in Parliament.
"Trust in the people" should be a habit of mind--a rule of action
tacitly adopted--not a party watchword. Tell a man or boy--more than
once--that you trust him, and he will probably take it--and not without
a warrant--that you don't, that in fact you have grave doubts but do not
wholly despair. The phrase might be taboo on the platform to raise cheap
cheers but silently recognised in the Cabinet as a guide in action. How
much better would it have been all through the War, and how much better
now, if there were no concealment, except when information given might
assist the enemy, if we knew at once even when things went wrong! There
have been times when it was necessary, in order to know at all what was
really going on, to read the German reports rather than our own, subject
of course to a discount. The difficulty with those German preparations
is to determine whether the discount for intentional falsification
should be 5 per cent. or 90 per cent. Candour, however, leads us rather
to admit the former as generally nearer the mark when military
operations have been the subject of them, at least until the Germans
began to suffer serious defeats in the field.
It would have been far better, too, to have assumed--there was real
ground for the assumption--that the nation was ready and willing at once
to make any sacrifice, to submit to privation, to rouse itself to any
effort if only the necessity for it were made clear, and if it could be
satisfied that so far as possible the burdens would be distributed
equally among all.
Increased taxation properly adjusted has almost been a general demand,
but unfairness in its incidence even on comparatively small matters is
intensely resented. The Food Control Ministry whose orders affect
everybody's daily comfort is positively popular, while the profiteer and
the food-hoarder arouse the bitterest, though perhaps not always
discriminating, indignation. Skilled workmen have been almost driven to
strike, not from want of patriotism, nor from desire for profit out of
the War, but because of the unfairness of leaving their wage at a level
often below that of the unskilled and even of casual importations. The
fatal delays which were sometimes quite unnecessary, in dealing with
complaints have added to the feeling of unrest. Suspicions were even
aroused sometimes that delays were intentional.
A like spirit of confidence is required in the statement of "War Aims."
The higher our aims are put--if put honestly--the more earnest and
complete is the response. Stated as they were by Mr. Asquith, with his
usual masterly precision of language, they received a practically
unanimous and enthusiastic approval. There was nothing sordid in the
motives which induced the best of our youth to offer their lives for
their country's cause.
Before the War it was a lack of "Trust in the people" which contributed
to our unprepared condition. How much nearer would victory have
been--possibly, indeed, there would have been no war--if our Government
and leading men had, instead of carping at the great man who had true
insight, stated plainly and calmly that great perils were threatened,
that it was necessary to set our house in order, to make military
training more general, to use all available knowledge in making ready
the machinery which would be necessary in case war was thrust upon us
suddenly! It was not "the people" who were responsible for the fact that
the storm found us so unprepared. They would not have resented being
told the truth, and asked to act accordingly. Even a candidate for
Parliament may sometimes say what he really thinks, and yet not repel
the electors, as witness one who, being asked long ago what was his view
about "one man one vote," answered, "It is a good question for a school
debating society. Let us talk about something important. Our first need
is a strong navy; without that we should be starving, perhaps eating
each other, or submitting to the most degrading terms, within a few
months of the outbreak of war, and the second is the increased
production of food at home to make us more self-supporting in time of
need. Let us think of these things." He was elected by the votes of the
artizans and agricultural labourers in a constituency where at the
election before there had been a great majority for the opposing
candidate, though he had no personal influence, had spent nothing in
"nursing the constituency," and refused to give pledges or act as a
delegate to register the instructions of any caucus. He died,
politically, without abjuring his faith. It was not the electors who
hastened his decease.
When a democratic Government is definitely established as in England
now, the alternatives for trust are either to hold aloof in despair
awaiting the débâcle, to resist to the bitter end with a result like
that which Stephenson said would occur if a cow attempted to stop his
locomotive, or to try humbug and flattery. You do not flatter those you
trust. We are not speaking of that delightful flattery practised by
Irishmen out of exuberant spirits or to create a genial atmosphere, but
which is so easily succeeded by equally picturesque and imaginative
denunciation. To resent is as foolish as to believe either, though we
must admit that it is often a pleasure to be a recipient of the one and
to hear the other _façon de parler_ addressed to our opponents. For the
stolid Saxon it is a good maxim to tell the truth as pleasantly as
possible, but to tell it plainly, and to be honest in admitting defects
and recognising dangers. We are on the whole rather an ignorant
nation--probably not more so than others, if we except the Germans and
possibly the Scandinavians. We are not, as a rule, clear-headed or
accurate thinkers, though we have generally a large fund of practical
good sense. We lack constructive imagination, but have a certain
originality and real power of initiative in dealing with practical
problems as they arise, and much dogged perseverance in "carrying a
thing through." These, like most other general propositions, are subject
to exceptions and open to many objections, but they contain a sufficient
element of truth to be worth noting.
It is well plainly to recognise that if democracy is to be a blessing
instead of a curse there are three conditions necessary to control and
guide its action. First, with the consciousness of power there must be a
deep sense of responsibility. Secondly, with freedom of action there
must be a law-abiding spirit, a habit of obedience to those laws of
action which control the arbitrary changeful will of the moment. The
prayer of the old Greek poet is one for all time:
May my lot be to keep a reverence pure in word and deed,
Controlled by laws, lofty, heaven-born,
Of which the father is God alone,
Not by the mortal nature of man begotten
Never in oblivion lulled to sleep!
God is mighty within them and grows not old.
Thirdly, there should be an ideal of what we aim at, of what we wish the
nation to become and to do, carefully thought out, and consciously set
before us--its attainment the object of our efforts--and with that must
be combined patient attention and steady work in planning and in taking
each practical step which will tend towards its realisation. Mere
captivating phrases are a will-of-the-wisp leading us to that "dangerous
quag" of revolutionary change into which "even if a good man fall he
will find no bottom for his feet to stand on." Reformation and
revolution are "contraries" though not perhaps "contradictories." Either
for the individual or the nation vague aspiration not followed by
beneficent action is the kind of stimulant which destroys virility. It
renders even virtue sterile, and engenders no new birth.
The Reign of Law is the best protection of Liberty. Arbitrariness--the
term seems the nearest we have to express the idea, but it is not quite
happy, and the use of the more expressive German word "Willkür" might be
pardoned--is as great a danger in a democracy as in an autocracy, and it
is less capable of remedy. The "divine right of the odd man" "to govern
wrong" is too often assumed as an article of political faith. A new
generation may think that to quote from an early Victorian writer is to
appeal to the "dark ages"; but is there not a warning for all time in
Hallam's words, "the absolute Government of the majority is in general
the most tyrannical of any"? It is possible to decapitate a king who
sets himself above the law, or to deport or destroy a reactionary and
tyrannous aristocracy, but against the crimes or follies of an
unrestrained majority there is no appeal. Chaos, "red ruin, and the
breaking up of laws" follow in their steps. A general and deep sense of
responsibility as well as consciousness of power among "the masses" is a
necessary condition for welfare in a country with democratic government.
More of the nation's life and development has been concentrated within
the last four years than would occupy fifty years of Europe or a "cycle
of Cathay" in ordinary times. It has borne sorrows and losses which
would have been overwhelming had it been known beforehand how great
they would be; the call for tremendous efforts for which it was totally
unprepared has been answered with steady resolve and heroic sacrifice.
Faith in human nature has been confirmed. Where there has been failure
it has not been through want of courage or any shrinking from duty on
the part of the rank and file, but rather from deficiencies in
leadership. Imaginative grasp of a position, clear and accurate
thinking, leading to prompt and definite action, can hardly be claimed
as special characteristics of our race, but once satisfied that a thing
has got to be done, that it is "up to them" to do it, checks or defeats,
labour or risks do not count. Sooner or later the task is performed. The
"recoil" of the British again and again after being pressed back is the
striking feature in their history. The spring is not easily wound up,
but it has enormous power, and the events of to-day show that it has not
lost its elasticity. But how much more might have been accomplished, how
much loss and suffering prevented, had knowledge awakened more interest
and a prophetic imagination guided and inspired action directed to a
definite goal, had we set our ideals clearly before us and carefully
thought out the steps to be taken one by one towards their realisation!
The recognition of these conditions is needed now, and will in the
coming changes be needed more and more. Enthusiasm and sanity must be
united to carry us safely forward. Tradition and custom will count for
less either in maintaining or in preventing what is evil. Many old modes
of thought, many old habits which checked us in the downward as well as
hindered us in the upward path, will have been destroyed by the fire
through which we have been passing. We need a conscious plan more than
ever for rebuilding and good workmanship in execution detail by detail.
Image the whole, then execute the parts.
Fancy the fabric
Quite ere you build, ere steel strike fire from quartz,
Ere mortar dab brick.
Then take the trowel and see that brick by brick each course is truly
laid.
But we are not building a new city on unoccupied ground; there are some
foundations truly laid which have withstood the fire and storm and which
cannot be disturbed without both risk and useless toil. There are still
edifices standing to which time has given a beauty and tradition a
sanctity which newer creations cannot possess. They cannot be removed
without irreparable loss. Like any other metaphor, that of rebuilding a
city as compared with the action of a state, of a nation, after a time
of change and trouble, is misleading if pressed too far. Progress for a
nation must rather be the growth and development of a living organism
adapting itself to new conditions or altered environment. We should "lop
the moulder'd branch away," amputate the diseased tissue, as the true
Conservative policy, and tend and foster the healthy growths with utmost
care, as the true method for the Liberal who aims at improvement and
fuller life.
One other thing must be said of the spirit in which the work of
Reconstruction should be undertaken, which goes to the root of the whole
matter, and a word must be used which we would have avoided if
possible--"the word is too often profaned for me to profane it." But
search for a substitute has been unavailing.
There are some words which are better unspoken, except in case of
necessity, that become soiled by common use. The too ready employment of
them may savour indeed of that unctuous tone which makes ordinary
Englishmen and boys squirm. "Conscience" is one. When a man speaks of
his conscience you at once, and quite rightly, begin to suspect him. He
is probably going to refuse some hard task which others are undertaking,
to do something which is offensive to his fellows, or at best, in sheer
obstinacy to insist on a course of conduct which he knows cannot be
justified by reason. Someone has defined "conscience" as the
"deification of our prejudices"; the giving of a kind of divine
authority to something we will insist on doing though it brings no
good, even causes harm, to ourselves and offends and injures others, or
the giving a name which should be sacred as commanding what we want to
do for other reasons. A staunch Nonconformist--one of the clearest
thinkers and probably the finest preacher of the last generation--how he
would have hated the phrase, but one cannot pause for another!--truly
said of the passive resisters in his day, "There is a deal more of
politics than of conscience in their action." Yet there are times when
even the word conscience may have to be used, and no other will suffice.
Another is "Duty"--so often put forward as the excuse for people doing
something stupid, probably something they have been in the habit of
doing and seem unable to give up, but which is really only a nuisance to
themselves and also to others. Yet there are under the abused words
ideas which should be the guide of life.
The third is "Love"--an earnest and intense desire for the welfare of
our fellow-men, keen joy in their happiness, keen sorrow in their
troubles. The word is out and shall not, except perhaps in a quotation,
be used again. To use the word lightly or without grave reason seems
almost a breach of the third clause of the Decalogue, remembering what
is said to be its equivalent by one who of all men who have lived had
the most intimate means of knowing. All work of reconstruction must be
inspired by a spirit of true philanthropy; without that the labour is in
vain. There is no other motive power that can move the world in the path
of true progress.
It will be said that this is both obvious and to be ignored--a platitude
with a flavour of cant. Is it? Do we not hear again and again the appeal
to envy and hatred as motives of action, a desire in social life to pull
down, if levelling up is not immediately practicable? Is not jealousy of
the success of others, whether individuals or classes or states, again
and again what really prompts a policy? Even in dealing with the
countries which are our declared enemies, the desire to injure ought
not to be our guide. If and when they relinquish the aims and cease from
such acts as forced us into war with them and make restitution for the
wrongs they have committed, the right policy is, as far as possible,
having clue regard to the just claims and interest of our friends, to do
what will be for their true benefit also in the long run. No doubt there
is a disgraceful and fatal policy, sometimes adopted by English
Governments, to be resolutely withstood--the policy of trying "to
conciliate our enemies by giving away our friends." We shall hear of it
again in dealing both with Ireland and with certain colonies when
Germany claims their return. On the other hand, the first maxim in all
negotiation, the first principle of sound diplomacy, is always to give
to the other side, and give without grudging, all he wants, provided it
does not interfere with what it is important for your side to secure.
Never be afraid of giving the opposing party too much, provided you get
what your side really ought to have. How often has one heard in
discussing a settlement the objection raised that the other party is
getting too much! It is an old-time fallacy to think that practical good
sense and the highest philanthropy are antagonistic; only be certain
that if in any case they seem to be so, the latter is to prevail.
With a good map you may safely have Mr. Worldly Wiseman's company to the
village of Morality, and visit the "judicious gentleman named Legality"
and "his charming son Civility"--yet find a straight road thence to the
Celestial City without deviating to the "great town" of Carnal Policy.
An apology perhaps is due in the twentieth century for using the
language of an earlier day; but everyone naturally thinks in the
language in which he was brought up, and education is now no doubt
sufficiently general to make allusion recognisable and translation easy.
There are still some survivals from a past generation who prefer even
the "minor prophets" as literature to the most "up-to-date" modern
utterances, though they have long ago relinquished the idea that there
is the slightest personal merit in doing so. Even when the older
language was half forgotten there were within our memory some who would
use it if they could, and perhaps did so when they felt strongly, as a
Scotsman in strange lands may, when deeply moved, revert to what
convention insists on calling his "native doric."
The question may fairly be put to all who are dealing with proposals for
reconstruction: "Is the aim you have in view definitely and clearly to
promote the general benefit?" Most would no doubt be able quite honestly
to answer, "Yes, that is my desire"; but we must go a step farther, "Are
you willing to make that object paramount? If it were proved that in
order to provide decent housing for a number of workers your dividends
would be reduced, are you prepared still to urge that the required
accommodation shall be provided? If the removal or the imposition of a
particular tariff will benefit the community as a whole, are you
prepared to vote for such a change, though owing to it the business in
which you are personally interested may make less profit?" There are
some men whose conduct shows that an answer could be given by them in
the affirmative. When the great majority can so answer with truth, we
need have no fear that the rebuilding of Britain, even if mistakes are
made, will be on sound foundations.
To sum up: in considering each proposal we must first examine the spirit
and the aim. Try the spirit, test the aims put before us by every means
in our power; venture to measure them by the moral canons of the great
thinkers and seers which have stood the test of time. Adopt the rules to
which the acts of those who have benefited mankind have conformed or
which have received the consent of the best--the "golden" rule, hard
though it be to apply rightly and thoroughly, or Kant's principle that
each act of the individual (or community) is to be tested by the
standard whether or no it can be made of universal application, whether
it can command approval if taken as a guide for their actions by other
men or other nations as well as our own. Goodwill and Charity, to be
strong and true, must begin at home, but for their full fruition require
a field which has no bounds.
That man's the best Cosmopolite
Who loves his native country best.
Part II
PEACE
_A.--INTERNATIONAL PEACE_
CHAPTER II
LEAGUE OF NATIONS--THE NEED
_Unless a nation, like an individual, have some purpose,
some ideal, some motive which lies outside of and beyond
self-interest and self-aggrandisement, war must continue
on the face of this earth until the day when the last and
strongest man shall look out upon a world that has been
depopulated in its pursuit of a false ideal._--NICHOLAS
MURRAY BUTLER.
Paramount in importance above everything else is the establishment and
maintenance of peace between nations. No remedies for disease, no rules
for healthy life will avail, if the arteries through which the
life-blood is pouring away remain open still or are only temporarily
closed and liable after a brief interval to burst out anew. The vitality
of the nation would be gone beyond recovery if another generation of its
best manhood were to be sacrificed and its materiall resources again
squandered to meet the necessities of a great war.
Every day that the War lasts forces on us more clearly the fact that
Science, not only natural science--physics and chemistry--but also the
scientific organisation of the State as an instrument of war, has so
developed the means of destruction as either to blot out humanity or to
leave the greater part of mankind in abject and bitter slavery to the
powers that can wield most effectively the instruments of death and of
torture, if war between the leading nations breaks out again after an
interval of seeming peace. How warfare has changed within living memory!
Five-and-twenty years ago the highest authority on naval construction
spoke with contempt of the submarine as a factor in war at sea. No one
then had solved the old world problem of aerial flight. Some of the most
distinguished men of science regarded the attempts which were then being
made as hopeless. It then seemed still to be a mere dream of poets.
Wireless telegraphy was only a matter of speculation, a thing which a
few only thought of as a possibility of the future. Man has indeed
plucked the fruit of the tree of knowledge for his own destruction. What
may be the result of another quarter of a century of like advancement of
the knowledge of the means of spreading "death throughout the world and
bitter woe"? It may not be, as Dr. Murray Butler says, that the
strongest man will remain alone in a depopulated world. The strongest
may succumb to the inventions for destruction and the survivors may be a
few of those maimed or weakened by disease whom the storm has passed
over as too obscure, of too little importance even for the messengers of
Death to remember and to relieve from their misery. This is not
rhetorical exaggeration. The weapons of offence regularly win in their
race with the weapons of defence. Fortresses that took years to
construct are shattered in a day. The ironclad is sunk by the torpedo.
How very little margin lay between this country and starvation through
action of submarines! Suppose the enemy had possessed five times as many
submarines from the first, would our defensive measures have prevailed?
How small an extension in the enemy's power in the air would have
enabled him in a single night to leave London a mass of ruins, its whole
population which had not fled dying in torment from poisonous gases!
Another five-and-twenty years of advance in scientific knowledge equal
to that of the last five-and-twenty years may easily make such a result
possible.
But some man--one of those who never look beyond the next year and their
own street, and expects always to carry on business as usual--will say
that the nations will be exhausted and tired of war, and this War will
be the last. Dare any country trust to that unless a new spirit is
infused into the nations and definite steps are taken to prevent war?
Did those who had the best means of knowledge--the Government of the
day--imagine that such a war as this would break out suddenly? If they
did, they would be guilty of a crime almost unparalleled in leaving us
so unprepared and fiddling with such questions--"Welsh Disestablishment"
and the like--as occupied their time and attention and excited the
political controversies of the months and years immediately preceding
the War.
Assume even that no new war does break out again actually, dare any
nation neglect to keep up its naval and military armaments on a scale
far greater than before? How is the burden to be met when every penny
that can be raised as revenue will be needed to meet the charge on our
gigantic debt and the necessary claims for carrying on Government, to
say nothing of improving the conditions of life? We cannot, nor can
other nations, go on using up capital and borrowing indefinitely. The
choice is between assured peace and certain ruin, even if no war
actually occurs. How can peace be assured? It would be well for some of
those with the requisite historical knowledge and insight to trace
carefully the causes which have led to war in the past, to attempt a
diagnosis of the disease which has again and again devastated the world.
A vain classification might perhaps be made into religious wars,
dynastic wars, trade wars; but is there not one element common almost to
all, namely, the will to power, the desire and intention of some man or
set of men to impose their will on others, regardless of justice, which
forbids the exercise of force to prevent each thinking, speaking, acting
as he will, provided he does not injure the rights of others? It was the
assertion of a claim to dominate which led to the eighty years' war when
Spain tried to impose her yoke on the Netherlands, and blended with
desire for gain a crusade against the faiths which rejected the
supremacy of Rome. Was the Thirty years War a religious war or a
struggle between rulers to assert and extend their powers? Take any one
of the series of long wars, such as those of Louis XIV. or of Napoleon,
under what head of such a classification do they fall? Does not the
common element above mentioned apply to all of them?
The urgency of taking definite steps to secure peace has been recognised
already, much thought has been devoted to it, and schemes even in some
detail have been suggested for dealing with it. The idea of a League of
Nations to secure peace is occupying the attention of many of the wisest
minds and of the statesmen who hold the most responsible positions. It
is meeting with strong popular support, at all events in Britain and in
the United States. France and Italy are examining the proposal. It is
well, however, where attractive phrases are used and schemes proposed,
to subject them carefully to the double test: how far they cover the
ground and meet the real difficulties; and, secondly, how they would
work out in practice in the circumstances which are likely to arise. We
want to look at the question as a whole, to see exactly what we have to
aim at, sometimes to reiterate what seem almost useless truisms. The
obvious is too often overlooked. First we need to recognise the actual
facts, then let the right spirit grow up and become general, and after
that attempt to plan the best machinery and test its probable effect and
efficiency by seeing how it would be expected to work in various special
cases.
There are now in the world two fundamentally different ways of looking
at international relations. On the one hand, we have the assertions
expressed definitely in words by many Germans and acted upon
consistently without qualification by the German Government, that
justice is the interest of the stronger; that power and force may be,
and indeed ought to be, exerted by a State without any check on moral
grounds; that a strong nation must realise itself, develop and use its
strength without regard to the so-called rights of the weaker; that
"those should take who have the power, and those should keep who can."
To them Reason, Common Sense, even the Divine Law seem to say: "Assert
thyself; have the will to power." Where such a spirit exists there can
be no binding force in agreements, rules of international law are a
farce, but convenient perhaps at times for embarrassing the action of
opponents who wish to treat them with respect. The dictates of humanity
may be set aside at discretion. With that spirit argument is useless.
With those who are inspired by it there can be no compromise, no truce.
It must be met by force inspired by moral earnestness. In that struggle
the alternative for the world is victory or death. Every man who falls
fighting against such a foe dies a martyr, witnessing by his death that
so far as in him lies the embodied powers of evil shall not prevail.
Unless the Power which thus claims to dominate is defeated it is useless
to talk of peace. On the other hand, it is essential to recognise, and
keep ever before us, the spirit which is opposed to this claim for
domination, this denial of the existence of justice, and to renew in the
whole nation the spirit in which it entered into the War.