home to the elector. If it could, the comparison between our Army estimates and those of other countries would work out quite differently. In any case it is to be hoped that neither an exaggerated desire for economy nor a sentimental idea as to the near approach of the millennium will induce the country to surrender its present position, or to refrain from taking steps to maintain forces sufficient to meet any increase which other Powers may think it prudent to initiate.

ADDITIONAL REPRINTS

AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION

Contemporary Review. 106: 493-9. October, 1914. Deceitfulness of War. J. W. Carliol. (Bishop of Carlisle)

There is this great difference between the evils and the benefits which result from war. The former are necessary to it; they belong to its being, are part of its nature, it cannot exist without them. It is not so with the latter. Good is sometimes as I have said, associated with war, yet not always; but evil is always associated with war, and not only sometimes. War is separable from good; from evil it is inseparable. The heroism and the other splendid virtues which we see in war are not produced by war; they merely find the arena for their epiphany on its bloody fields. These virtues were latent in the warrior and the sufferer before. War only manifests; it does not make them. It brings them from obscurity to prominence, from static existence to dynamic power; but it is part of the deceitfulness of war to persuade us that in bringing virtues to light it creates them, and without its generating influence they could not come into being.

The facts all go against this assumption. Heroism is displayed on other scenes than those of battle: in polar expeditions, on the bridges and decks of sinking ships, in the extinction of fires, in ministeries to suffering and combats with disease, in leper settlements and missionary self-sacrifices. Yet who should say that ships should be steered into icebergs, or conflagrations ignited, or disease fostered in order that heroism should be manifested? Why then should war be fostered? No

good comes from it which could not be brought about some other and nobler way, without the evils which necessarily result from its ravages. When war-mongers teach that heroism lives by force alone, their teachings are a deceitful fraud, as the heroism of the Cross incontestably witnesses.

Forum. 53: 156-9. January, 1915.

More Militarism?

Good intentions may have paved hell, but it does not necessarily follow that evil intentions have improved the patines of bright gold with which the floor of heaven is thick inlaid. Yet this would appear to be the view of many zealous but myopic publicists. Because the sane, resolute efforts of those who have worked for peace during the last decade were not able to avert the colossal crime of the present war, it is assumed that henceforward and for ever common decency and the will-to-righteousness of civilized nations must be regarded as the playthings of drivelling degenerates. Moral suasion is discredited, noxious, ridiculous. Away with it! Away with all reason and forbearance! Let us stand boldly on the solid foundation of brute force. Then, when the next war comes, we shall be able to say with gratitude that the fangs of pacifism were drawn in time and the condition of humanity manifestly improved.

The idea is amusing, perhaps, but compatible only with extreme youth or with obvious mental deficiency. Let us try to see precisely what is involved in it.

For some time the leading men of many great nations-men like President Wilson, William Howard Taft, Sir Edward Grey, Lloyd George, Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, William Jennings Bryan, and hundreds of others not so well known in this country-have been definitely preaching and trying to practice the doctrine that nations should cease to behave as gangmen and gunmen, and should settle any disputes that may arise soberly, justly, with mutual forbearance and courtesy. The idea had been slowly permeating through the peoples, so that every

where, in all grades and classes, the principle of rationality was being accepted and an enormous force of intelligent public opinion was being focussed and directed toward the practical application of the growing sense of justice as opposed to sheer thuggism. But the efforts of the reactionaries, and the complexities of organizations based on medieval ideas of racial hatred, prevented the immediate and universal acceptance of the only basis of international relations that should be possible in a world rapidly becoming democratized. The war broke out in spite of the pacifists, and because of the militarists. As Mr. Arnold Bennett has said, and justly, if Great Britain had followed Lord Roberts's advice and tried, two or three years ago, to raise an army commensurate with her naval defences, hostilities would probably have been merely precipitated. The fallacy that preparation for offence ensures freedom from attack has been utterly exploded: the millions of new graves in Europe will bear testimony to high heaven.

It is not a matter, as some seem to imagine, of signing pieces of paper with gold pens and complacently assuming that all's well with the world at once. It is a matter, as Mr. Bryan knows more clearly than his venomous detractors, of using for purposes of peace efforts commensurate with those that have hitherto been devoted to purposes of war. Ideals are necessary: but the means for their practical application must be devised. There must be anxious thought and preparation for the world conference that should surely follow the war; proposals must be ready for the reconstruction of the nations, for the elimination of offensive armaments, for the absolute prohibition of new territorial acquisitions as the result and prize of the crime of war. The traffic in munitions of war for private profit is, of course, already doomed.

But the great hope and chief reliance of reasonable men. must rest in the good will and common sense of democracy. Let us get rid of secret diplomacy and the whole damnable system of bureaucracy which enable fossilized permanent officials to nullify the will of the people and plunge them into disaster. Let us remember, scoff who may, that public opinion