of protecting the coast of France. She has not only done that, and
incidentally driven Germany from the seas, but she has thrown her ships
into the attack on the Dardanelles and has helped Russia with her
submarines in the Baltic.
"When the war started there was a financial understanding between
England and France. England has not only carried out her share in this
understanding, but has been instrumental in the financing of Italy, and
stands ready to assume further similar responsibilities in the Balkans.
"How any candid mind in the face of such a record can charge Great
Britain with shirking her share in the war passes my understanding."
There is no doubt about the truth of this. To get the voluntary gift
of three million lives within one year, to get the voluntary loan
of £600,000,000 in less than one month is probably an unparalleled
achievement. Great Britain has done far more than her duty to others
called for. And yet the question will not be smothered: Is she doing
all that is called for by a strong, far-seeing nation's duty to itself?
She has thrown into the scales all the peculiar assets of a democracy
in spontaneous zeal and voluntary sacrifice. But can a really great
nation in such a crisis as this afford to be the recipient of only
those contributions, no matter how prodigal, which are spontaneous
and voluntary? Can a really proud nation afford to base its career
at such a time upon the charity of its citizens? With Russia on the
one hand purging herself of the bureaucratic evils of absolutism and
forcing upon herself the pains of democratization, with France, on the
other hand, sacrificing for the time her most cherished principles
of republicanism in order to substitute the efficiency of Authority
for the waste motions of Democracy, can England afford to remain
complacently convinced that she represents the happy mean between these
two extremes--a mean which needs no modifying?
Can England as a nation continue with admiring acquiescence to watch
the cream of her manhood spend itself in Flanders and the Dardanelles;
continue with deprecating acquiescence to watch the skimmed milk of
her manhood preserve itself at home for the sacred duty of fathering a
future generation?
Can England acquiesce placidly in the professional, the business, the
financial sacrifices generally which so many Englishmen are splendidly
making, and acquiesce plaintively in the disgusting treason whose
guilt was shared in varying measure by the gouging coal-owners and the
striking coal-miners of Wales?
Can England set out to curb the drunkenness which in certain parts
is crippling her ammunition production and then sink back into
acquiescence in the temporizing compromise which taxed drunkenness
instead of terminating it?
Can England, in fine, afford to preserve Personal Liberty at the
slightest risk of imperilling National Liberty?
Perhaps England can. Perhaps England must.
So long as England fulfils and far exceeds her covenants with her
allies it is not a question for them to answer. It is assuredly not
a question to which any neutral visitor can with seemliness hazard a
solution.
It is not even a question, in my opinion, which is apt to affect the
ultimate outcome of this particular war.
But it is a question to which on some future day Macaulay's New
Zealander will, with positiveness and propriety, be in a position to
find the answer.
* * * * *
Transcriber's note:
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. Printer's
inconsistencies in the use of accents, hyphens, and punctuation
have been retained. The original spelling has been used except
where there was good reason to correct it. Any such changes are
noted below.
The following misprints and misspellings have been corrected:
Page 3, "avions de reglage" changed to "avions de réglage". (their
"avions de réglage," or "regulating aeroplanes.")
Page 4, "aviatiks" changed to "Aviatiks". (Aviatiks of the enemy)
Page 4, "fusilage" changed to "fuselage". (projected over the bow of
the fuselage)
Page 11, "pilot- spotted" changed to "pilot spotted". (puffs of smoke
in the hazy distance the pilot spotted unerringly)
Page 33, "practise" changed to "practice". (And practice in this matter)
Page 57, "departs" changed to '"départs"'. (distant reports of the
"départs")
Page 86, "leant themselves" changed to "lent themselves". (and clay
lent themselves to effects which)
Page 100, "scrupulously cleanly," changed to "scrupulously clean,".
(I found them scrupulously clean, very patient)
Page 136, "drommelfeuer" changed to "trommelfeuer". (the famous
"trommelfeuer" ... "drum-roll fire," as the Germans call it)
There is in the book the single use of the word "exterpreting"
(page 78) for which no adequate definition has been found. It is
not a spelling mistake. From the context it might be an amusing
play on the word "interpreting."