diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/10291-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/10291-h/10291-h.htm | 4183 |
1 files changed, 4183 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/10291-h/10291-h.htm b/old/10291-h/10291-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c7a47e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/10291-h/10291-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4183 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> + +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta content="pg2html (binary v0.17)" name="linkgenerator" /> + <title> + In the Fourth Year, by H. G. Wells + </title> + <style type="text/css" xml:space="preserve"> + body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} + P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .75em; margin-bottom: .75em; } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } + hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} + .foot { margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; text-align: justify; font-size: 80%; font-style: italic;} + blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} + .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} + .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} + .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} + .xx-small {font-size: 60%;} + .x-small {font-size: 75%;} + .small {font-size: 85%;} + .large {font-size: 115%;} + .x-large {font-size: 130%;} + .indent5 { margin-left: 5%;} + .indent10 { margin-left: 10%;} + .indent15 { margin-left: 15%;} + .indent20 { margin-left: 20%;} + .indent25 { margin-left: 25%;} + .indent30 { margin-left: 30%;} + .indent35 { margin-left: 35%;} + .indent40 { margin-left: 40%;} + div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } + div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; } + .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} + .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} + .pagenum {position: absolute; right: 1%; font-size: 0.6em; + font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; + text-align: right; background-color: #FFFACD; + border: 1px solid; padding: 0.3em;text-indent: 0em;} + .side { float: left; font-size: 75%; width: 15%; padding-left: 0.8em; + border-left: dashed thin; text-align: left; + text-indent: 0; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; + font-weight: bold; color: black; background: #eeeeee; border: solid 1px;} + .head { float: left; font-size: 90%; width: 98%; padding-left: 0.8em; + border-left: dashed thin; text-align: center; + text-indent: 0; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; + font-weight: bold; color: black; background: #eeeeee; border: solid 1px;} + p.pfirst, p.noindent {text-indent: 0} + span.dropcap { float: left; margin: 0 0.1em 0 0; line-height: 0.8 } + pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} +</style> + </head> + <body> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> +The Project Gutenberg EBook of In The Fourth Year, by H.G. Wells + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: In The Fourth Year + Anticipations of a World Peace (1918) + +Author: H.G. Wells + +Release Date: November 26, 2003 [EBook #10291] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK IN THE FOURTH YEAR *** + + + + +Etext produced by Jonathan Ingram, Brett Koonce and PG Distributed Proofreaders + +HTML file produced by David Widger + + +</pre> + <div style="height: 8em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h1> + IN THE FOURTH YEAR + </h1> + <h3> + ANTICIPATIONS OF A WORLD PEACE + </h3> + <h2> + By H. G. Wells + </h2> + <h3> + 1918 + </h3> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_PREF" id="link2H_PREF"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + PREFACE + </h2> + <p> + In the latter half of 1914 a few of us were writing that this war was a + “War of Ideas.” A phrase, “The War to end War,” + got into circulation, amidst much sceptical comment. It was a phrase + powerful enough to sway many men, essentially pacifists, towards taking an + active part in the war against German imperialism, but it was a phrase + whose chief content was its aspiration. People were already writing in + those early days of disarmament and of the abolition of the armament + industry throughout the world; they realized fully the element of + industrial belligerency behind the shining armour of imperialism, and they + denounced the “Krupp-Kaiser” alliance. But against such + writing and such thought we had to count, in those days, great and + powerful realities. Even to those who expressed these ideas there lay + visibly upon them the shadow of impracticability; they were very “advanced" + ideas in 1914, very Utopian. Against them was an unbroken mass of mental + habit and public tradition. While we talked of this “war to end war,” + the diplomatists of the Powers allied against Germany were busily spinning + a disastrous web of greedy secret treaties, were answering aggression by + schemes of aggression, were seeing in the treacherous violence of Germany + only the justification for countervailing evil acts. To them it was only + another war for “ascendancy.” That was three years and a half + ago, and since then this “war of ideas” has gone on to a phase + few of us had dared hope for in those opening days. The Russian revolution + put a match to that pile of secret treaties and indeed to all the + imperialist plans of the Allies; in the end it will burn them all. The + greatest of the Western Allies is now the United States of America, and + the Americans have come into this war simply for an idea. Three years and + a half ago a few of us were saying this was a war against the idea of + imperialism, not German imperialism merely, but British and French and + Russian imperialism, and we were saying this not because it was so, but + because we hoped to see it become so. To-day we can say so, because now it + is so. + </p> + <p> + In those days, moreover, we said this is the “war to end war,” + and we still did not know clearly how. We thought in terms of treaties and + alliances. It is largely the detachment and practical genius of the great + English-speaking nation across the Atlantic that has carried the world on + beyond and replaced that phrase by the phrase, “The League of + Nations,” a phrase suggesting plainly the organization of a + sufficient instrument by which war may be ended for ever. In 1913 talk of + a World League of Nations would have seemed, to the extremest pitch, + “Utopian.” To-day the project has an air not only of being so + practicable, but of being so urgent and necessary and so manifestly the + sane thing before mankind that not to be busied upon it, not to be making + it more widely known and better understood, not to be working out its + problems and bringing it about, is to be living outside of the + contemporary life of the world. For a book upon any other subject at the + present time some apology may be necessary, but a book upon this subject + is as natural a thing to produce now as a pair of skates in winter when + the ice begins to bear. + </p> + <p> + All we writers find ourselves engaged perforce in some part or other of a + world-wide propaganda of this the most creative and hopeful of political + ideas that has ever dawned upon the consciousness of mankind. With no + concerted plan we feel called upon to serve it. And in no connection would + one so like to think oneself un-original as in this connection. It would + be a dismaying thing to realize that one were writing anything here which + was not the possible thought of great multitudes of other people, and + capable of becoming the common thought of mankind. One writes in such a + book as this not to express oneself but to swell a chorus. The idea of the + League of Nations is so great a one that it may well override the + pretensions and command the allegiance of kings; much more does it claim + the self-subjugation of the journalistic writer. Our innumerable books + upon this great edifice of a World Peace do not constitute a scramble for + attention, but an attempt to express in every variety of phrase and aspect + this one system of ideas which now possesses us all. In the same way the + elementary facts and ideas of the science of chemistry might conceivably + be put completely and fully into one text-book, but, as a matter of fact, + it is far more convenient to tell that same story over in a thousand + different forms, in a text-book for boys here, for a different sort or + class of boy there, for adult students, for reference, for people expert + in mathematics, for people unused to the scientific method, and so on. For + the last year the writer has been doing what he can—and a number of + other writers have been doing what they can—to bring about a united + declaration of all the Atlantic Allies in favour of a League of Nations, + and to define the necessary nature of that League. He has, in the course + of this work, written a series of articles upon the League and upon <i>the + necessary sacrifices of preconceptions</i> that the idea involves in the + London press. He has also been trying to clear his own mind upon the real + meaning of that ambiguous word “democracy,” for which the + League is to make the world “safe.” The bulk of this book is + made up of these discussions. For a very considerable number of readers, + it may be well to admit here, it can have no possible interest; they will + have come at these questions themselves from different angles and they + will have long since got to their own conclusions. But there may be others + whose angle of approach may be similar to the writer’s, who may have + asked some or most of the questions he has had to ask, and who may be + actively interested in the answers and the working out of the answers he + has made to these questions. For them this book is printed. + </p> + <h3> + H. G. WELLS. + </h3> + <p> + <i>May</i>, 1918. + </p> + <p> + It is a dangerous thing to recommend specific books out of so large and + various a literature as the “League of Nations" idea has already + produced, but the reader who wishes to reach beyond the range of this + book, or who does not like its tone and method, will probably find + something to meet his needs and tastes better in Marburg’s “League + of Nations,” a straightforward account of the American side of the + movement by the former United States Minister in Belgium, on the one hand, + or in the concluding parts of Mr. Fayle’s “Great Settlement” + (1915), a frankly sceptical treatment from the British Imperialist point + of view, on the other. An illuminating discussion, advocating peace + treaties rather than a league, is Sir Walter Phillimore’s “Three + Centuries of Treaties.” Two excellent books from America, that + chance to be on my table, are Mr. Goldsmith’s “League to + Enforce Peace” and “A World in Ferment” by President + Nicholas Murray Butler. Mater’s “Sociiti des Nations” + (Didier) is an able presentation of a French point of view. Brailsford’s + “A League of Nations” is already a classic of the movement in + England, and a very full and thorough book; and Hobson’s “Towards + International Government” is a very sympathetic contribution from + the English liberal left; but the reader must understand that these two + writers seem disposed to welcome a peace with an unrevolutionized Germany, + an idea to which, in common with most British people, I am bitterly + opposed. Walsh’s “World Rebuilt” is a good exhortation, + and Mugge’s “Parliament of Man” is fresh and sane and + able. The omnivorous reader will find good sense and quaint English in + Judge Mejdell’s “<i>Jus Gentium</i>,” published in + English by Olsen’s of Christiania. There is an active League of + Nations Society in Dublin, as well as the London and Washington ones, + publishing pamphlets and conducting propaganda. All these books and + pamphlets I have named happen to lie upon my study table as I write, but I + have made no systematic effort to get together literature upon the + subject, and probably there are just as many books as good of which I have + never even heard. There must, I am sure, be statements of the League of + Nations idea forthcoming from various religious standpoints, but I do not + know any sufficiently well to recommend them. It is incredible that + neither the Roman Catholic Church, the English Episcopal Church, nor any + Nonconformist body has made any effort as an organization to forward this + essentially religious end of peace on earth. And also there must be German + writings upon this same topic. I mention these diverse sources not in + order to present a bibliography, but because I should be sorry to have the + reader think that this little book pretends to state <i>the</i> case + rather than <i>a</i> case for the League of Nations. + </p> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <br /> + </p> + <p> + <b>CONTENTS</b> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_PREF"> PREFACE </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0002"> IN THE FOURTH YEAR </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0003"> THE LEAGUE OF FREE NATIONS </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0004"> I. — THE WAY TO CONCRETE REALIZATION </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0005"> II. — THE LEAGUE MUST BE REPRESENTATIVE + </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0006"> III. — THE NECESSARY POWERS OF THE LEAGUE + </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0007"> IV. — THE LABOUR VIEW OF MIDDLE AFRICA + </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0008"> V. — GETTING THE LEAGUE IDEA CLEAR IN + RELATION TO IMPERIALISM </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0009"> ' 1 </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0010"> ' 2 </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0011"> ' 3 </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0012"> VI. — THE WAR AIMS OF THE WESTERN ALLIES + </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0013"> VII. — THE FUTURE OF MONARCHY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0014"> VIII. — THE PLAIN NECESSITY FOR A LEAGUE + </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0015"> IX. — DEMOCRACY </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0016"> X. — THE RECENT STRUGGLE FOR PROPORTIONAL + REPRESENTATION IN GREAT BRITAIN </a> + </p> + <p class="toc"> + <a href="#link2H_4_0017"> XI. — THE STUDY AND PROPAGANDA OF + DEMOCRACY </a> + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IN THE FOURTH YEAR + </h2> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0003" id="link2H_4_0003"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + THE LEAGUE OF FREE NATIONS + </h2> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0004" id="link2H_4_0004"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + I. — THE WAY TO CONCRETE REALIZATION + </h2> + <p> + More and more frequently does one hear this phrase, The League of Nations, + used to express the outline idea of the new world that will come out of + the war. There can be no doubt that the phrase has taken hold of the + imaginations of great multitudes of people: it is one of those creative + phrases that may alter the whole destiny of mankind. But as yet it is + still a very vague phrase, a cloudy promise of peace. I make no apology + therefore, for casting my discussion of it in the most general terms. The + idea is the idea of united human effort to put an end to wars; the first + practical question, that must precede all others, is how far can we hope + to get to a concrete realization of that? + </p> + <p> + But first let me note the fourth word in the second title of this book. + The common talk is of a “League of Nations” merely. I follow + the man who is, more than any other man, the leader of English political + thought throughout the world to-day, President Wilson, in inserting that + significant adjective “Free.” We western allies know to-day + what is involved in making bargains with governments that do not stand for + their peoples; we have had all our Russian deal, for example, repudiated + and thrust back upon our hands; and it is clearly in his mind, as it must + be in the minds of all reasonable men, that no mere “scrap of paper,” + with just a monarch’s or a chancellor’s endorsement, is a good + enough earnest of fellowship in the league. It cannot be a diplomatist’s + league. The League of Nations, if it is to have any such effect as people + seem to hope from it, must be, in the first place, “understanded of + the people.” It must be supported by sustained, deliberate + explanation, and by teaching in school and church and press of the whole + mass of all the peoples concerned. I underline the adjective “Free” + here to set aside, once for all, any possible misconception that this + modern idea of a League of Nations has any affinity to that Holy Alliance + of the diplomatists, which set out to keep the peace of Europe so + disastrously a century ago. + </p> + <p> + Later I will discuss the powers of the League. But before I come to that I + would like to say a little about the more general question of its nature + and authority. What sort of gathering will embody it? The suggestions made + range from a mere advisory body, rather like the Hague convention, which + will merely pronounce on the rights and wrongs of any international + conflict, to the idea of a sort of Super-State, a Parliament of Mankind, a + “Super National” Authority, practically taking over the + sovereignty of the existing states and empires of the world. Most people’s + ideas of the League fall between these extremes. They want the League to + be something more than an ethical court, they want a League that will act, + but on the other hand they shrink from any loss of “our + independence.” There seems to be a conflict here. There is a real + need for many people to tidy up their ideas at this point. We cannot have + our cake and eat it. If association is worth while, there must be some + sacrifice of freedom to association. As a very distinguished colonial + representative said to me the other day: “Here we are talking of the + freedom of small nations and the ‘self-determination’ of + peoples, and at the same time of the Council of the League of Nations and + all sorts of international controls. Which do we want?” + </p> + <p> + The answer, I think, is “Both.” It is a matter of more or + less, of getting the best thing at the cost of the second-best. We may + want to relax an old association in order to make a newer and wider one. + It is quite understandable that peoples aware of a distinctive national + character and involved in some big existing political complex, should wish + to disentangle themselves from one group of associations in order to enter + more effectively into another, a greater, and more satisfactory one. The + Finn or the Pole, who has hitherto been a rather reluctant member of the + synthesis of the Russian empire, may well wish to end that attachment in + order to become a free member of a worldwide brotherhood. The desire for + free arrangement is not a desire for chaos. There is such a thing as + untying your parcels in order to pack them better, and I do not see myself + how we can possibly contemplate a great league of freedom and reason in + the world without a considerable amount of such preliminary dissolution. + </p> + <p> + It happens, very fortunately for the world, that a century and a quarter + ago thirteen various and very jealous states worked out the problem of a + Union, and became—after an enormous, exhausting wrangle—the + United States of America. Now the way they solved their riddle was by + delegating and giving over jealously specified sovereign powers and doing + all that was possible to retain the residuum. They remained essentially + sovereign states. New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, for example, remained + legally independent. The practical fusion of these peoples into one people + outran the legal bargain. It was only after long years of discussion that + the point was conceded; it was indeed only after the Civil War that the + implications were fully established, that there resided a sovereignty in + the American people as a whole, as distinguished from the peoples of the + several states. This is a precedent that every one who talks about the + League of Nations should bear in mind. These states set up a congress and + president in Washington with strictly delegated powers. That congress and + president they delegated to look after certain common interests, to deal + with interstate trade, to deal with foreign powers, to maintain a supreme + court of law. Everything else—education, militia, powers of life and + death—the states retained for themselves. To this day, for instance, + the federal courts and the federal officials have no power to interfere to + protect the lives or property of aliens in any part of the union outside + the district of Columbia. The state governments still see to that. The + federal government has the legal right perhaps to intervene, but it is + still chary of such intervention. And these states of the American Union + were at the outset so independent-spirited that they would not even adopt + a common name. To this day they have no common name. We have to call them + Americans, which is a ridiculous name when we consider that Canada, + Mexico, Peru, Brazil are all of them also in America. Or else we have to + call them Virginians, Californians, New Englanders, and so forth. Their + legal and nominal separateness weighs nothing against the real fusion that + their great league has now made possible. + </p> + <p> + Now, that clearly is a precedent of the utmost value in our schemes for + this council of the League of Nations. We must begin by delegating, as the + States began by delegating. It is a far cry to the time when we shall talk + and think of the Sovereign People of the Earth. That council of the League + of Nations will be a tie as strong, we hope, but certainly not so close + and multiplex as the early tie of the States at Washington. It will begin + by having certain delegated powers and no others. It will be an “<i>ad + hoc</i>” body. Later its powers may grow as mankind becomes + accustomed to it. But at first it will have, directly or mediately, all + the powers that seem necessary to restrain the world from war—and + unless I know nothing of patriotic jealousies it will have not a scrap of + power more. The danger is much more that its powers will be insufficient + than that they will be excessive. Of that later. What I want to discuss + here now is the constitution of this delegated body. I want to discuss + that first in order to set aside out of the discussion certain fantastic + notions that will otherwise get very seriously in our way. Fantastic as + they are, they have played a large part in reducing the Hague Tribunal to + an ineffective squeak amidst the thunders of this war. + </p> + <p> + A number of gentlemen scheming out world unity in studies have begun their + proposals with the simple suggestion that each sovereign power should send + one member to the projected parliament of mankind. This has a pleasant + democratic air; one sovereign state, one vote. Now let us run over a list + of sovereign states and see to what this leads us. We find our list + includes the British Empire, with a population of four hundred millions, + of which probably half can read and write some language or other; Bogota + with a population of a million, mostly poets; Hayti with a population of a + million and a third, almost entirely illiterate and liable at any time to + further political disruption; Andorra with a population of four or five + thousand souls. The mere suggestion of equal representation between such + “powers” is enough to make the British Empire burst into a + thousand (voting) fragments. A certain concession to population, one must + admit, was made by the theorists; a state of over three millions got, if I + remember rightly, two delegates, and if over twenty, three, and some of + the small states were given a kind of intermittent appearance, they only + came every other time or something of that sort; but at The Hague things + still remained in such a posture that three or four minute and backward + states could outvote the British Empire or the United States. Therein lies + the clue to the insignificance of The Hague. Such projects as these are + idle projects and we must put them out of our heads; they are against + nature; the great nations will not suffer them for a moment. + </p> + <p> + But when we dismiss this idea of representation by states, we are left + with the problem of the proportion of representation and of relative + weight in the Council of the League on our hands. It is the sort of + problem that appeals terribly to the ingenious. We cannot solve it by + making population a basis, because that will give a monstrous importance + to the illiterate millions of India and China. Ingenious statistical + schemes have been framed in which the number of university graduates and + the steel output come in as multipliers, but for my own part I am not + greatly impressed by statistical schemes. At the risk of seeming something + of a Prussian, I would like to insist upon certain brute facts. The + business of the League of Nations is to keep the peace of the world and + nothing else. No power will ever dare to break the peace of the world if + the powers that are capable of making war under modern conditions say + “<i>No</i>.” And there are only four powers certainly capable + at the present time of producing the men and materials needed for a modern + war in sufficient abundance to go on fighting: Britain, France, Germany, + and the United States. There are three others which are very doubtfully + capable: Italy, Japan, and Austria. Russia I will mark—it is all + that one can do with Russia just now—with a note of interrogation. + Some day China may be war capable—I hope never, but it is a + possibility. Personally I don’t think that any other power on earth + would have a ghost of a chance to resist the will—if it could be an + honestly united will—of the first-named four. All the rest fight by + the sanction of and by association with these leaders. They can only fight + because of the split will of the war-complete powers. Some are forced to + fight by that very division. + </p> + <p> + No one can vie with me in my appreciation of the civilization of + Switzerland, Sweden, or Holland, but the plain fact of the case is that + such powers are absolutely incapable of uttering an effective protest + against war. Far less so are your Haytis and Liberias. The preservation of + the world-peace rests with the great powers and with the great powers + alone. If they have the will for peace, it is peace. If they have not, it + is conflict. The four powers I have named can now, if they see fit, + dictate the peace of the world for ever. + </p> + <p> + Let us keep our grip on that. Peace is the business of the great powers + primarily. Steel output, university graduates, and so forth may be + convenient secondary criteria, may be useful ways of measuring war + efficiency, but the meat and substance of the Council of the League of + Nations must embody the wills of those leading peoples. They can give an + enduring peace to the little nations and the whole of mankind. It can + arrive in no other way. So I take it that the Council of an ideal League + of Nations must consist chiefly of the representatives of the great + belligerent powers, and that the representatives of the minor allies and + of the neutrals—essential though their presence will be—must + not be allowed to swamp the voices of these larger masses of mankind. + </p> + <p> + And this state of affairs may come about more easily than logical, + statistical-minded people may be disposed to think. Our first impulse, + when we discuss the League of Nations idea, is to think of some very + elaborate and definite scheme of members on the model of existing + legislative bodies, called together one hardly knows how, and sitting in a + specially built League of Nations Congress House. All schemes are more + methodical than reality. We think of somebody, learned and “expert,” + in spectacles, with a thin clear voice, reading over the “Projected + Constitution of a League of Nations” to an attentive and respectful + Peace Congress. But there is a more natural way to a league than that. + Instead of being made like a machine, the League of Nations may come about + like a marriage. The Peace Congress that must sooner or later meet may + itself become, after a time, the Council of a League of Nations. The + League of Nations may come upon us by degrees, almost imperceptibly. I am + strongly obsessed by the idea that that Peace Congress will necessarily + become—and that it is highly desirable that it should become—a + most prolonged and persistent gathering. Why should it not become at + length a permanent gathering, inviting representatives to aid its + deliberations from the neutral states, and gradually adjusting itself to + conditions of permanency? + </p> + <p> + I can conceive no such Peace Congress as those that have settled up after + other wars, settling up after this war. Not only has the war been + enormously bigger than any other war, but it has struck deeper at the + foundations of social and economic life. I doubt if we begin to realize + how much of the old system is dead to-day, how much has to be remade. + Since the beginnings of history there has been a credible promise of gold + payments underneath our financial arrangements. It is now an incredible + promise. The value of a pound note waves about while you look at it. What + will happen to it when peace comes no man can tell. Nor what will happen + to the mark. The rouble has gone into the Abyss. Our giddy money + specialists clutch their handfuls of paper and watch it flying down the + steep. Much as we may hate the Germans, some of us will have to sit down + with some of the enemy to arrange a common scheme for the preservation of + credit in money. And I presume that it is not proposed to end this war in + a wild scramble of buyers for such food as remains in the world. There is + a shortage now, a greater shortage ahead of the world, and there will be + shortages of supply at the source and transport in food and all raw + materials for some years to come. The Peace Congress will have to sit and + organize a share-out and distribution and reorganization of these + shattered supplies. It will have to Rhondda the nations. Probably, too, we + shall have to deal collectively with a pestilence before we are out of the + mess. Then there are such little jobs as the reconstruction of Belgium and + Serbia. There are considerable rectifications of boundaries to be made. + There are fresh states to be created, in Poland and Armenia for example. + About all these smaller states, new and old, that the peace must call into + being, there must be a system of guarantees of the most difficult and + complicated sort. + </p> + <p> + I do not see the Press Congress getting through such matters as these in a + session of weeks or months. The idea the Germans betrayed at Brest, that + things were going to be done in the Versailles fashion by great moustached + heroes frowning and drawing lines with a large black soldierly thumbnail + across maps, is—old-fashioned. They have made their eastern + treaties, it is true, in this mode, but they are still looking for some + really responsible government to keep them now that they are made. From + first to last clearly the main peace negotiations are going to follow + unprecedented courses. This preliminary discussion of war aims by means of + great public speeches, that has been getting more and more explicit now + for many months, is quite unprecedented. Apparently all the broad + preliminaries are to be stated and accepted in the sight of all mankind + before even an armistice occurs on the main, the western front. The German + diplomatists hate this process. So do a lot of ours. So do some of the + diplomatic Frenchmen. The German junkers are dodging and lying, they are + fighting desperately to keep back everything they possibly can for the + bargaining and bullying and table-banging of the council chamber, but that + way there is no peace. And when at last Germany says snip sufficiently to + the Allies’ snap, and the Peace Congress begins, it will almost + certainly be as unprecedented as its prelude. Before it meets, the broad + lines of the settlement will have been drawn plainly with the approval of + the mass of mankind. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0005" id="link2H_4_0005"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + II. — THE LEAGUE MUST BE REPRESENTATIVE + </h2> + <p> + A Peace Congress, growing permanent, then, may prove to be the most + practical and convenient embodiment of this idea of a League of Nations + that has taken possession of the imagination of the world. A most + necessary preliminary to a Peace Congress, with such possibilities + inherent in it, must obviously be the meeting and organization of a + preliminary League of the Allied Nations. That point I would now enlarge. + </p> + <p> + Half a world peace is better than none. There seems no reason whatever why + the world should wait for the Central Powers before it begins this + necessary work. Mr. McCurdy has been asking lately, “Why not the + League of Nations <i>now</i>?” That is a question a great number of + people would like to echo very heartily. The nearer the Allies can come to + a League of Free Nations before the Peace Congress the more prospect there + is that that body will approximate in nature to a League of Nations for + the whole world. + </p> + <p> + In one most unexpected quarter the same idea has been endorsed. The King’s + Speech on the prorogation of Parliament this February was one of the most + remarkable royal utterances that have ever been made from the British + throne. There was less of the old-fashioned King and more of the modern + President about it than the most republican-minded of us could have + anticipated. For the first time in a King’s Speech we heard of the + “democracies” of the world, and there was a clear claim that + the Allies at present fighting the Central Powers did themselves + constitute a League of Nations. + </p> + <p> + But we must admit that at present they do so only in a very rhetorical + sense. There is no real council of empowered representatives, and nothing + in the nature of a united front has been prepared. Unless we provide + beforehand for something more effective, Italy, France, the United States, + Japan, and this country will send separate groups of representatives, with + separate instructions, unequal status, and very probably conflicting views + upon many subjects, to the ultimate peace discussions. It is quite + conceivable—it is a very serious danger—that at this + discussion skilful diplomacy on the part of the Central Powers may open a + cleft among the Allies that has never appeared during the actual war. Have + the British settled, for example, with Italy and France for the supply of + metallurgical coal after the war? Those countries must have it somehow. + Across the board Germany can make some tempting bids in that respect. Or + take another question: Have the British arrived at common views with + France, Belgium, Portugal, and South Africa about the administration of + Central Africa? Suppose Germany makes sudden proposals affecting native + labour that win over the Portuguese and the Boers? There are a score of + such points upon which we shall find the Allied representatives haggling + with each other in the presence of the enemy if they have not been settled + beforehand. + </p> + <p> + It is the plainest common sense that we should be fixing up all such + matters with our Allies now, and knitting together a common front for the + final deal with German Imperialism. And these things are not to be done + effectively and bindingly nowadays by official gentlemen in discreet + undertones. They need to be done with the full knowledge and authority of + the participating peoples. + </p> + <p> + The Russian example has taught the world the instability of diplomatic + bargains in a time of such fundamental issues as the present. There is + little hope and little strength in hole-and-corner bargainings between the + officials or politicians who happen to be at the head of this or that + nation for the time being. Our Labour people will not stand this sort of + thing and they will not be bound by it. There will be the plain danger of + repudiation for all arrangements made in that fashion. A gathering of + somebody or other approved by the British Foreign Office and of somebody + or other approved by the French Foreign Office, of somebody with vague + powers from America, and so on and so on, will be an entirely ineffective + gathering. But that is the sort of gathering of the Allies we have been + having hitherto, and that is the sort of gathering that is likely to + continue unless there is a considerable expression of opinion in favour of + something more representative and responsible. + </p> + <p> + Even our Foreign Office must be aware that in every country in the world + there is now bitter suspicion of and keen hostility towards merely + diplomatic representatives. One of the most significant features of the + time is the evident desire of the Labour movement in every European + country to take part in a collateral conference of Labour that shall meet + when and where the Peace Congress does and deliberate and comment on its + proceedings. For a year now the demand of the masses for such a Labour + conference has been growing. It marks a distrust of officialdom whose + intensity officialdom would do well to ponder. But it is the natural + consequence of, it is the popular attempt at a corrective to, the + aloofness and obscurity that have hitherto been so evil a characteristic + of international negotiations. I do not think Labour and intelligent + people anywhere are going to be fobbed off with an old-fashioned + diplomatic gathering as being that League of Free Nations they demand. + </p> + <p> + On the other hand, I do not contemplate this bi-cameral conference with + the diplomatists trying to best and humbug the Labour people as well as + each other and the Labour people getting more and more irritated, + suspicious, and extremist, with anything but dread. The Allied countries + must go into the conference <i>solid</i>, and they can only hope to do + that by heeding and incorporating Labour ideas before they come to the + conference. The only alternative that I can see to this unsatisfactory + prospect of a Peace Congress sitting side by side with a dissentient and + probably revolutionary Labour and Socialist convention—both + gatherings with unsatisfactory credentials contradicting one another and + drifting to opposite extremes—is that the delegates the Allied + Powers send to the Peace Conference (the same delegates which, if they are + wise, they will have previously sent to a preliminary League of Allied + Nations to discuss their common action at the Peace Congress), should be + elected <i>ad hoc</i> upon democratic lines. + </p> + <p> + I know that this will be a very shocking proposal to all our able + specialists in foreign policy. They will talk at once about the “ignorance” + of people like the Labour leaders and myself about such matters, and so + on. What do we know of the treaty of so-and-so that was signed in the year + seventeen something?—and so on. To which the answer is that we ought + not to have been kept ignorant of these things. A day will come when the + Foreign Offices of all countries will have to recognize that what the + people do not know of international agreements “ain’t facts.” + A secret treaty is only binding upon the persons in the secret. But what + I, as a sample common person, am not ignorant of is this: that the + business that goes on at the Peace Congress will either make or mar the + lives of everyone I care for in the world, and that somehow, by + representative or what not, <i>I have to be there</i>. The Peace Congress + deals with the blood and happiness of my children and the future of my + world. Speaking as one of the hundreds of millions of “rank + outsiders” in public affairs, I do not mean to respect any peace + treaty that may end this war unless I am honestly represented at its + making. I think everywhere there is a tendency in people to follow the + Russian example to this extent and to repudiate bargains in which they + have had no voice. + </p> + <p> + I do not see that any genuine realization of the hopes with which all this + talk about the League of Nations is charged can be possible, unless the + two bodies which should naturally lead up to the League of Nations—that + is to say, firstly, the Conference of the Allies, and then the Peace + Congress—are elected bodies, speaking confidently for the whole mass + of the peoples behind them. It may be a troublesome thing to elect them, + but it will involve much more troublesome consequences if they are not + elected. This, I think, is one of the considerations for which many people’s + minds are still unprepared. But unless we are to have over again after all + this bloodshed and effort some such “Peace with Honour” + foolery as we had performed by “Dizzy” and Salisbury at that + fatal Berlin Conference in which this present war was begotten, we must + sit up to this novel proposal of electoral representation in the peace + negotiations. Something more than common sense binds our statesmen to this + idea. They are morally pledged to it. President Wilson and our British and + French spokesmen alike have said over and over again that they want to + deal not with the Hohenzollerns but with the German people. In other + words, we have demanded elected representatives from the German people + with whom we may deal, and how can we make a demand of that sort unless we + on our part are already prepared to send our own elected representatives + to meet them? It is up to us to indicate by our own practice how we on our + side, professing as we do to act for democracies, to make democracy safe + on the earth, and so on, intend to meet this new occasion. + </p> + <p> + Yet it has to be remarked that, so far, not one of the League of Nations + projects I have seen have included any practicable proposals for the + appointment of delegates either to that ultimate body or to its two + necessary predecessors, the Council of the Allies and the Peace Congress. + It is evident that here, again, we are neglecting to get on with something + of very urgent importance. I will venture, therefore, to say a word or two + here about the possible way in which a modern community may appoint its + international representatives. + </p> + <p> + And here, again, I turn from any European precedents to that political + outcome of the British mind, the Constitution of the United States. + (Because we must always remember that while our political institutions in + Britain are a patch-up of feudalism, Tudor, Stuart, and Hanoverian + monarchist traditions and urgent merely European necessities, a patch-up + that has been made quasi-democratic in a series of after-thoughts, the + American Constitution is a real, deliberate creation of the + English-speaking intelligence.) The President of the United States, then, + we have to note, is elected in a most extraordinary way, and in a way that + has now the justification of very great successes indeed. On several + occasions the United States has achieved indisputable greatness in its + Presidents, and very rarely has it failed to set up very leaderly and + distinguished men. It is worth while, therefore, to inquire how this + President is elected. He is neither elected directly by the people nor + appointed by any legislative body. He is chosen by a special college + elected by the people. This college exists to elect him; it meets, elects + him, and disperses. (I will not here go into the preliminary complications + that makes the election of a President follow upon a preliminary election + of two Presidential Candidates. The point I am making here is that he is a + specially selected man chosen <i>ad hoc</i>.) Is there any reason why we + should, not adopt this method in this new necessity we are under of + sending representatives, first, to the long overdue and necessary Allied + Council, then to the Peace Congress, and then to the hoped-for Council of + the League of Nations? + </p> + <p> + I am anxious here only to start for discussion the idea of an electoral + representation of the nations upon these three bodies that must in + succession set themselves to define, organize, and maintain the peace of + the world. I do not wish to complicate the question by any too explicit + advocacy of methods of election or the like. In the United States this + college which elects the President is elected on the same register of + voters as that which elects the Senate and Congress, and at the same time. + But I suppose if we are to give a popular mandate to the three or five or + twelve or twenty (or whatever number it is) men to whom we are going to + entrust our Empire’s share in this great task of the peace + negotiations, it will be more decisive of the will of the whole nation if + the college that had to appoint them is elected at a special election. I + suppose that the great British common-weals over-seas, at present not + represented in Parliament, would also and separately at the same time + elect colleges to appoint their representatives. I suppose there would be + at least one Indian representative elected, perhaps by some special + electoral conference of Indian princes and leading men. The chief defect + of the American Presidential election is that as the old single vote + method of election is employed it has to be fought on purely party lines. + He is the select man of the Democratic half, or of the Republican half of + the nation. He is not the select man of the whole nation. It would give a + far more representative character to the electoral college if it could be + elected by fair modern methods, if for this particular purpose + parliamentary constituencies could be grouped and the clean scientific + method of proportional representation could be used. But I suppose the + party politician in this, as in most of our affairs, must still have his + pound of our flesh—and we must reckon with him later for the + bloodshed. + </p> + <p> + These are all, however, secondary considerations. The above paragraph is, + so to speak, in the nature of a footnote. The fundamental matter, if we + are to get towards any realization of this ideal of a world peace + sustained by a League of Nations, is to get straight away to the + conception of direct special electoral mandates in this matter. At present + all the political luncheon and dinner parties in London are busy with + smirking discussions of “Who is to go?” The titled ladies are + particularly busy. They are talking about it as if we poor, ignorant, + tax-paying, blood-paying common people did not exist. “L. G.,” + they say, will of course “<i>insist</i> on going,” but there + is much talk of the “Old Man.” People are getting quite nice + again about “the Old Man’s feelings.” It would be such a + pretty thing to send him. But if “L. G.” goes we want him to + go with something more than a backing of intrigues and snatched authority. + And I do not think the mass of people have any enthusiasm for the Old Man. + It is difficult again—by the dinner-party standards—to know + how Lord Curzon can be restrained. But we common people do not care if he + is restrained to the point of extinction. Probably there will be nobody + who talks or understands Russian among the British representatives. But, + of course, the British governing class has washed its hands of the + Russians. They were always very difficult, and now they are “impossible, + my dear, perfectly impossible.” + </p> + <p> + No! That sort of thing will not do now. This Peace Congress is too big a + job for party politicians and society and county families. The bulk of + British opinion cannot go on being represented for ever by President + Wilson. We cannot always look to the Americans to express our ideas and do + our work for democracy. The foolery of the Berlin Treaty must not be + repeated. We cannot have another popular Prime Minister come triumphing + back to England with a gross of pink spectacles—through which we may + survey the prospect of the next great war. The League of Free Nations + means something very big and solid; it is not a rhetorical phrase to be + used to pacify a restless, distressed, and anxious public, and to be + sneered out of existence when that use is past. When the popular mind now + demands a League of Free Nations it demands a reality. The only way to + that reality is through the direct participation of the nation as a whole + in the settlement, and that is possible only through the direct election + for this particular issue of representative and responsible men. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0006" id="link2H_4_0006"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + III. — THE NECESSARY POWERS OF THE LEAGUE + </h2> + <p> + If this phrase, “the League of Free Nations,” is to signify + anything more than a rhetorical flourish, then certain consequences follow + that have to be faced now. No man can join a partnership and remain an + absolutely free man. You cannot bind yourself to do this and not to do + that and to consult and act with your associates in certain eventualities + without a loss of your sovereign freedom. People in this country and in + France do not seem to be sitting up manfully to these necessary + propositions. + </p> + <p> + If this League of Free Nations is really to be an effectual thing for the + preservation of the peace of the world it must possess power and exercise + power, powers must be delegated to it. Otherwise it will only help, with + all other half-hearted good resolutions, to pave the road of mankind to + hell. Nothing in all the world so strengthens evil as the half-hearted + attempts of good to make good. + </p> + <p> + It scarcely needs repeating here—it has been so generally said—that + no League of Free Nations can hope to keep the peace unless every member + of it is indeed a free member, represented by duly elected persons. + Nobody, of course, asks to “dictate the internal government” + of any country to that country. If Germans, for instance, like to wallow + in absolutism after the war they can do so. But if they or any other + peoples wish to take part in a permanent League of Free Nations it is only + reasonable to insist that so far as their representatives on the council + go they must be duly elected under conditions that are by the standards of + the general league satisfactorily democratic. That seems to be only the + common sense of the matter. Every court is a potential conspiracy against + freedom, and the League cannot tolerate merely court appointments. If + courts are to exist anywhere in the new world of the future, they will be + wise to stand aloof from international meddling. Of course if a people, + after due provision for electoral representation, choose to elect dynastic + candidates, that is an altogether different matter. + </p> + <p> + And now let us consider what are the powers that must be delegated to this + proposed council of a League of Free Nations, if that is really + effectually to prevent war and to organize and establish and make peace + permanent in the world. + </p> + <p> + Firstly, then, it must be able to adjudicate upon all international + disputes whatever. Its first function must clearly be that. Before a war + can break out there must be the possibility of a world decision upon its + rights and wrongs. The League, therefore, will have as its primary + function to maintain a Supreme Court, whose decisions will be final, + before which every sovereign power may appear as plaintiff against any + other sovereign power or group of powers. The plea, I take it, will always + be in the form that the defendant power or powers is engaged in + proceedings “calculated to lead to a breach of the peace,” and + calling upon the League for an injunction against such proceedings. I + suppose the proceedings that can be brought into court in this way fall + under such headings as these that follow; restraint of trade by injurious + tariffs or suchlike differentiations or by interference with through + traffic, improper treatment of the subjects <i>or their property</i> (here + I put a query) of the plaintiff nation in the defendant state, aggressive + military or naval preparation, disorder spreading over the frontier, + trespass (as, for instance, by airships), propaganda of disorder, + espionage, permitting the organization of injurious activities, such as + raids or piracy. Clearly all such actions must come within the purview of + any world-supreme court organized to prevent war. But in addition there is + a more doubtful and delicate class of case, arising out of the discontent + of patches of one race or religion in the dominions of another. How far + may the supreme court of the world attend to grievances between subject + and sovereign? + </p> + <p> + Such cases are highly probable, and no large, vague propositions about the + “self-determination” of peoples can meet all the cases. In + Macedonia, for instance, there is a jumble of Albanian, Serbian, + Bulgarian, Greek and Rumanian villages always jostling one another and + maintaining an intense irritation between the kindred nations close at + hand. And quite a large number of areas and cities in the world, it has to + be remembered, are not homogeneous at all. Will the great nations of the + world have the self-abnegation to permit a scattered subject population to + appeal against the treatment of its ruling power to the Supreme Court? + This is a much more serious interference with sovereignty than + intervention in an external quarrel. Could a Greek village in Bulgarian + Macedonia plead in the Supreme Court? Could the Armenians in + Constantinople, or the Jews in Roumania, or the Poles in West Prussia, or + the negroes in Georgia, or the Indians in the Transvaal make such an + appeal? Could any Indian population in India appeal? Personally I should + like to see the power of the Supreme Court extend as far as this. I do not + see how we can possibly prevent a kindred nation pleading for the + scattered people of its own race and culture, or any nation presenting a + case on behalf of some otherwise unrepresented people—the United + States, for example, presenting a case on behalf of the Armenians. But I + doubt if many people have made up their minds yet to see the powers of the + Supreme Court of the League of Nations go so far as this. I doubt if, to + begin with, it will be possible to provide for these cases. I would like + to see it done, but I doubt if the majority of the sovereign peoples + concerned will reconcile their national pride with the idea, at least so + far as their own subject populations go. + </p> + <p> + Here, you see, I do no more than ask a question. It is a difficult one, + and it has to be answered before we can clear the way to the League of + Free Nations. + </p> + <p> + But the Supreme Court, whether it is to have the wider or the narrower + scope here suggested, would be merely the central function of the League + of Free Nations. Behind the decisions of the Supreme Court must lie power. + And here come fresh difficulties for patriotic digestions. The armies and + navies of the world must be at the disposal of the League of Free Nations, + and that opens up a new large area of delegated authority. The first + impulse of any power disposed to challenge the decisions of the Supreme + Court will be, of course, to arm; and it is difficult to imagine how the + League of Free Nations can exercise any practical authority unless it has + power to restrain such armament. The League of Free Nations must, in fact, + if it is to be a working reality, have power to define and limit the + military and naval and aerial equipment of every country in the world. + This means something more than a restriction of state forces. It must have + power and freedom to investigate the military and naval and aerial + establishments of all its constituent powers. It must also have effective + control over every armament industry. And armament industries are not + always easy to define. Are aeroplanes, for example, armament? Its powers, + I suggest, must extend even to a restraint upon the belligerent propaganda + which is the natural advertisement campaign of every armament industry. It + must have the right, for example, to raise the question of the + proprietorship of newspapers by armament interests. Disarmament is, in + fact, a necessary factor of any League of Free Nations, and you cannot + have disarmament unless you are prepared to see the powers of the council + of the League extend thus far. The very existence of the League + presupposes that it and it alone is to have and to exercise military + force. Any other belligerency or preparation or incitement to belligerency + becomes rebellion, and any other arming a threat of rebellion, in a world + League of Free Nations. + </p> + <p> + But here, again, has the general mind yet thought out all that is involved + in this proposition? In all the great belligerent countries the armament + industries are now huge interests with enormous powers. Krupp’s + business alone is as powerful a thing in Germany as the Crown. In every + country a heavily subsidized “patriotic” press will fight + desperately against giving powers so extensive and thorough as those here + suggested to an international body. So long, of course, as the League of + Free Nations remains a project in the air, without body or parts, such a + press will sneer at it gently as “Utopian,” and even patronize + it kindly. But so soon as the League takes on the shape its general + proposition makes logically necessary, the armament interest will take + fright. Then it is we shall hear the drum patriotic loud in defence of the + human blood trade. Are we to hand over these most intimate affairs of ours + to “a lot of foreigners”? Among these “foreigners” + who will be appealed to to terrify the patriotic souls of the British will + be the “Americans.” Are we men of English blood and tradition + to see our affairs controlled by such “foreigners” as Wilson, + Lincoln, Webster and Washington? Perish the thought! When they might be + controlled by Disraelis, Wettins, Mount-Battens, and what not! And so on + and so on. Krupp’s agents and the agents of the kindred firms in + Great Britain and France will also be very busy with the national pride of + France. In Germany they have already created a colossal suspicion of + England. + </p> + <p> + Here is a giant in the path.... + </p> + <p> + But let us remember that it is only necessary to defeat the propaganda of + this vile and dangerous industry in four great countries. And for the + common citizen, touched on the tenderest part of his patriotic + susceptibilities, there are certain irrefutable arguments. Whether the + ways of the world in the years to come are to be the paths of peace or the + paths of war is not going to alter this essential fact, that the great + educated world communities, with a social and industrial organization on a + war-capable scale, are going to dominate human affairs. Whether they spend + their power in killing or in educating and creating, France, Germany, + however much we may resent it, the two great English-speaking communities, + Italy, Japan China, and presently perhaps a renascent Russia, are jointly + going to control the destinies of mankind. Whether that joint control + comes through arms or through the law is a secondary consideration. To + refuse to bring our affairs into a common council does not make us + independent of foreigners. It makes us more dependent upon them, as a very + little consideration will show. + </p> + <p> + I am suggesting here that the League of Free Nations shall practically + control the army, navy, air forces, and armament industry of every nation + in the world. What is the alternative to that? To do as we please? No, the + alternative is that any malignant country will be free to force upon all + the rest just the maximum amount of armament it chooses to adopt. Since + 1871 France, we say, has been free in military matters. What has been the + value of that freedom? The truth is, she has been the bond-slave of + Germany, bound to watch Germany as a slave watches a master, bound to + launch submarine for submarine and cast gun for gun, to sweep all her + youth into her army, to subdue her trade, her literature, her education, + her whole life to the necessity of preparations imposed upon her by her + drill-master over the Rhine. And Michael, too, has been a slave to his + imperial master for the self-same reason, for the reason that Germany and + France were both so proudly sovereign and independent. Both countries have + been slaves to Kruppism and Zabernism—<i>because they were sovereign + and free</i>! So it will always be. So long as patriotic cant can keep the + common man jealous of international controls over his belligerent + possibilities, so long will he be the helpless slave of the foreign + threat, and “Peace” remain a mere name for the resting phase + between wars. + </p> + <p> + But power over the military resources of the world is by no means the + limit of the necessary powers of an effective League of Free Nations. + There are still more indigestible implications in the idea, and, since + they have got to be digested sooner or later if civilization is not to + collapse, there is no reason why we should not begin to bite upon them + now. I was much interested to read the British press upon the alleged + proposal of the German Chancellor that we should give up (presumably to + Germany) Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt, and suchlike key possessions. It seemed + to excite several of our politicians extremely. I read over the German + Chancellor’s speech very carefully, so far as it was available, and + it is clear that he did not propose anything of the sort. Wilfully or + blindly our press and our demagogues screamed over a false issue. The + Chancellor was defending the idea of the Germans remaining in Belgium and + Lorraine because of the strategic and economic importance of those regions + to Germany, and he was arguing that before we English got into such a + feverish state of indignation about that, we should first ask ourselves + what we were doing in Gibraltar, etc., etc. That is a different thing + altogether. And it is an argument that is not to be disposed of by + misrepresentation. The British have to think hard over this quite + legitimate German <i>tu quoque</i>. It is no good getting into a patriotic + bad temper and refusing to answer that question. We British people are so + persuaded of the purity and unselfishness with which we discharge our + imperial responsibilities, we have been so trained in imperial + self-satisfaction, we know so certainly that all our subject nations call + us blessed, that it is a little difficult for us to see just how the fact + that we are, for example, so deeply rooted in Egypt looks to an outside + intelligence. Of course the German imperialist idea is a wicked and + aggressive idea, as Lord Robert Cecil has explained; they want to set up + all over the earth coaling stations and strategic points, <i>on the + pattern of ours.</i> Well, they argue, we are only trying to do what you + British have done. If we are not to do so—because it is aggression + and so on and so on—is not the time ripe for you to make some + concessions to the public opinion of the world? That is the German + argument. Either, they say, tolerate this idea of a Germany with + advantageous posts and possessions round and about the earth, or + reconsider your own position. + </p> + <p> + Well, at the risk of rousing much patriotic wrath, I must admit that I + think we <i>have</i> to reconsider our position. Our argument is that in + India, Egypt, Africa and elsewhere, we stand for order and civilization, + we are the trustees of freedom, the agents of knowledge and efficiency. On + the whole the record of British rule is a pretty respectable one; I am not + ashamed of our record. Nevertheless <i>the case is altering</i>. + </p> + <p> + It is quite justifiable for us British, no doubt, if we do really play the + part of honest trustees, to remain in Egypt and in India under existing + conditions; it is even possible for us to glance at the helplessness of + Arabia, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, as yet incapable of self-government, + helpless as new-born infants. But our case, our only justifiable case, is + that we are trustees because there is no better trustee possible. And the + creation of a council of a League of Free Nations would be like the + creation of a Public Trustee for the world. The creation of a League of + Free Nations must necessarily be the creation of an authority that may + legitimately call existing empires to give an account of their + stewardship. For an unchecked fragmentary control of tropical and chaotic + regions, it substitutes the possibility of a general authority. And this + must necessarily alter the problems not only of the politically immature + nations and the control of the tropics, but also of the regulation of the + sea ways, the regulation of the coming air routes, and the distribution of + staple products in the world. I will not go in detail over the items of + this list, because the reader can fill in the essentials of the argument + from what has gone before. I want simply to suggest how widely this + project of a League of Free Nations swings when once you have let it swing + freely in your mind! And if you do not let it swing freely in your mind, + it remains nothing—a sentimental gesture. + </p> + <p> + The plain truth is that the League of Free Nations, if it is to be a + reality, if it is to effect a real pacification of the world, must do no + less than supersede Empire; it must end not only this new German + imperialism, which is struggling so savagely and powerfully to possess the + earth, but it must also wind up British imperialism and French + imperialism, which do now so largely and inaggressively possess it. And, + moreover, this idea queries the adjective of Belgian, Portuguese, French, + and British Central Africa alike, just as emphatically as it queries + “German.” Still more effectually does the League forbid those + creations of the futurist imagination, the imperialism of Italy and + Greece, which make such threatening gestures at the world of our children. + Are these incompatibilities understood? Until people have faced the clear + antagonism that exists between imperialism and internationalism, they have + not begun to suspect the real significance of this project of the League + of Free Nations. They have not begun to realize that peace also has its + price. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0007" id="link2H_4_0007"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IV. — THE LABOUR VIEW OF MIDDLE AFRICA + </h2> + <p> + I was recently privileged to hear the views of one of those titled and + influential ladies—with a general education at about the fifth + standard level, plus a little French, German, Italian, and music—who + do so much to make our England what it is at the present time, upon the + Labour idea of an international control of “tropical” Africa. + She was loud and derisive about the “ignorance” of Labour. + “What can <i>they</i> know about foreign politics?” she said, + with gestures to indicate her conception of <i>them</i>. + </p> + <p> + I was moved to ask her what she would do about Africa. “Leave it to + Lord Robert!” she said, leaning forward impressively. “<i>Leave + it to the people who know.</i>” + </p> + <p> + Unhappily I share the evident opinion of Labour that we are not blessed + with any profoundly wise class of people who have definite knowledge and + clear intentions about Africa, that these “<i>people who know</i>” + are mostly a pretentious bluff, and so, in spite of a very earnest desire + to take refuge in my “ignorance” from the burthen of thinking + about African problems, I find myself obliged, like most other people, to + do so. In the interests of our country, our children, and the world, we + common persons <i>have</i> to have opinions about these matters. A + muddle-up in Africa this year may kill your son and mine in the course of + the next decade. I know this is not a claim to be interested in things + African, such as the promoter of a tropical railway or an oil speculator + has; still it is a claim. And for the life of me I cannot see what is + wrong about the Labour proposals, or what alternative exists that can give + even a hope of peace in and about Africa. + </p> + <p> + The gist of the Labour proposal is an international control of Africa + between the Zambesi and the Sahara. This has been received with loud + protests by men whose work one is obliged to respect, by Sir Harry, + Johnston, for example, and Sir Alfred Sharpe, and with something + approaching a shriek of hostility by Mr. Cunninghame Graham. But I think + these gentlemen have not perhaps given the Labour proposal quite as much + attention as they have spent upon the details of African conditions. I + think they have jumped to conclusions at the mere sound of the word + “international.” There have been some gross failures in the + past to set up international administrations in Africa and the Near East. + And these gentlemen think at once of some new Congo administration and of + nondescript police forces commanded by cosmopolitan adventurers. (See + Joseph Conrad’s “Out-post of Civilization.”) They think + of internationalism with greedy Great Powers in the background outside the + internationalized area, intriguing to create disorder and mischief with + ideas of an ultimate annexation. But I doubt if such nightmares do any + sort of justice to the Labour intention. + </p> + <p> + And the essential thing I would like to point out to these authorities + upon African questions is that not one of them even hints at any other + formula which covers the broad essentials of the African riddle. + </p> + <p> + What are these broad essentials? What are the ends that <i>must</i> be + achieved if Africa is not to continue a festering sore in the body of + mankind? + </p> + <p> + The first most obvious danger of Africa is the militarization of the + black. General Smuts has pointed this out plainly. The negro makes a good + soldier; he is hardy, he stands the sea, and he stands cold. (There was a + negro in the little party which reached the North Pole.) It is absolutely + essential to the peace of the world that there should be no arming of the + negroes beyond the minimum necessary for the policing of Africa. But how + is this to be watched and prevented if there is no overriding body + representing civilization to say “Stop” to the beginnings of + any such militarization? I do not see how Sir Harry Johnston, Sir Alfred + Sharpe, and the other authorities can object to at least an international + African “Disarmament Commission” to watch, warn, and protest. + At least they must concede that. + </p> + <p> + But in practice this involves something else. A practical consequence of + this disarmament idea must be an effective control of the importation of + arms into the “tutelage” areas of Africa. That rat at the + dykes of civilization, that ultimate expression of political scoundrelism, + the Gun-Runner, has to be kept under and stamped out in Africa as + everywhere. A Disarmament Commission that has no forces available to + prevent the arms trade will be just another Hague Convention, just another + vague, well-intentioned, futile gesture. + </p> + <p> + And closely connected with this function of controlling the arms trade is + another great necessity of Africa under “tutelage,” and that + is the necessity of a common collective agreement not to demoralize the + native population. That demoralization, physical and moral, has already + gone far. The whole negro population of Africa is now rotten with diseases + introduced by Arabs and Europeans during the last century, and such + African statesmen as Sir Harry Johnston are eloquent upon the necessity of + saving the blacks—and the baser whites—from the effects of + trade gin and similar alluring articles of commerce. Moreover, from Africa + there is always something new in the way of tropical diseases, and + presently Africa, if we let it continue to fester as it festers now, may + produce an epidemic that will stand exportation to a temperate climate. A + bacterium that may kill you or me in some novel and disgusting way may + even now be developing in some Congo muck-heap. So here is the need for + another Commission to look after the Health of Africa. That, too, should + be of authority over all the area of “tutelage” Africa. It is + no good stamping out infectious disease in Nyasaland while it is being + bred in Portuguese East Africa. And if there is a Disarmament Commission + already controlling the importation of arms, why should not that body also + control at the same time the importation of trade gin and similar + delicacies, and direct quarantine and such-like health regulations? + </p> + <p> + But there is another question in Africa upon which our “ignorant” + Labour class is far better informed than our dear old eighteenth-century + upper class which still squats so firmly in our Foreign and Colonial + Offices, and that is the question of forced labour. We cannot tolerate any + possibilities of the enslavement of black Africa. Long ago the United + States found out the impossibility of having slave labour working in the + same system with white. To cure that anomaly cost the United States a long + and bloody war. The slave-owner, the exploiter of the black, becomes a + threat and a nuisance to any white democracy. He brings back his loot to + corrupt Press and life at home. What happened in America in the midst of + the last century between Federals and Confederates must not happen again + on a larger scale between white Europe and middle Africa. Slavery in + Africa, open or disguised, whether enforced by the lash or brought about + by iniquitous land-stealing, strikes at the home and freedom of every + European worker—<i>and Labour knows this</i>. + </p> + <p> + But how are we to prevent the enslavement and economic exploitation of the + blacks if we have no general watcher of African conditions? We want a + common law for Africa, a general Declaration of Rights, of certain + elementary rights, and we want a common authority to which the black man + and the native tribe may appeal for justice. What is the good of trying to + elevate the population of Uganda and to give it a free and hopeful life if + some other population close at hand is competing against the Baganda + worker under lash and tax? So here is a third aspect of our international + Commission, as a native protectorate and court of appeal! + </p> + <p> + There is still a fourth aspect of the African question in which every + mother’s son in Europe is closely interested, and that is the trade + question. Africa is the great source of many of the most necessary raw + materials upon which our modern comforts and conveniences depend; more + particularly is it the source of cheap fat in the form of palm oil. One of + the most powerful levers in the hands of the Allied democracies at the + present time in their struggle against the imperial brigands of Potsdam is + the complete control we have now obtained over these essential supplies. + We can, if we choose, cut off Germany altogether from these vital economic + necessities, if she does not consent to abandon militant imperialism for + some more civilized form of government. We hope that this war will end in + that renunciation, and that Germany will re-enter the community of + nations. But whether that is so or not, whether Germany is or is not to be + one of the interested parties in the African solution, the fact remains + that it is impossible to contemplate a continuing struggle for the African + raw material supply between the interested Powers. Sooner or later that + means a renewal of war. International trade rivalry is, indeed, only war—<i>smouldering</i>. + We need, and Labour demands, a fair, frank treatment of African trade, and + that can only be done by some overriding regulative power, a Commission + which, so far as I can see, might also be the same Commission as that we + have already hypothesized as being necessary to control the Customs in + order to prevent gun-running and the gin trade. That Commission might very + conveniently have a voice in the administration of the great waterways of + Africa (which often run through the possessions of several Powers) and in + the regulation of the big railway lines and air routes that will speedily + follow the conclusion of peace. + </p> + <p> + Now this I take it is the gist of the Labour proposal. This—and no + more than this—is what is intended by the “international + control of tropical Africa.” <i>I do not read that phrase as + abrogating existing sovereignties in Africa</i>. What is contemplated is a + delegation of authority. Every one should know, though unhappily the + badness of our history teaching makes it doubtful if every one does know, + that the Federal Government of the United States of America did not begin + as a sovereign Government, and has now only a very questionable + sovereignty. Each State was sovereign, and each State delegated certain + powers to Washington. That was the initial idea of the union. Only later + did the idea of a people of the States as a whole emerge. In the same way + I understand the Labour proposal as meaning that we should delegate to an + African Commission the middle African Customs, the regulation of + inter-State trade, inter-State railways and waterways, quarantine and + health generally, and the establishment of a Supreme Court for middle + African affairs. One or two minor matters, such as the preservation of + rare animals, might very well fall under the same authority. + </p> + <p> + Upon that Commission the interested nations, that is to say—putting + them in alphabetical order—the Africander, the Briton, the Belgian, + the Egyptian, the Frenchman, the Italian, the Indian the Portuguese—might + all be represented in proportion to their interest. Whether the German + would come in is really a question for the German to consider; he can come + in as a good European, he cannot come in as an imperialist brigand. + Whether, too, any other nations can claim to have an interest in African + affairs, whether the Commission would not be better appointed by a League + of Free Nations than directly by the interested Governments, and a number + of other such questions, need not be considered here. Here we are + discussing only the main idea of the Labour proposal. + </p> + <p> + Now beneath the supervision and restraint of such a delegated Commission I + do not see why the existing administrations of tutelage Africa should not + continue. I do not believe that the Labour proposal contemplates any + humiliating cession of European sovereignty. Under that international + Commission the French flag may still wave in Senegal and the British over + the protected State of Uganda. Given a new spirit in Germany I do not see + why the German flag should not presently be restored in German East + Africa. But over all, standing for righteousness, patience, fair play for + the black, and the common welfare of mankind would wave a new flag, the + Sun of Africa representing the Central African Commission of the League of + Free Nations. + </p> + <p> + That is my vision of the Labour project. It is something very different, I + know, from the nightmare of an international police of cosmopolitan + scoundrels in nondescript uniforms, hastening to loot and ravish his dear + Uganda and his beloved Nigeria, which distresses the crumpled pillow of + Sir Harry Johnston. But if it is not the solution, then it is up to him + and his fellow authorities to tell us what is the solution of the African + riddle. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0008" id="link2H_4_0008"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + V. — GETTING THE LEAGUE IDEA CLEAR IN RELATION TO IMPERIALISM + </h2> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0009" id="link2H_4_0009"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + ' 1 + </h2> + <p> + It is idle to pretend that even at the present time the idea of the League + of Free Nations has secure possession of the British mind. There is quite + naturally a sustained opposition to it in all the fastnesses of aggressive + imperialism. Such papers as the <i>Times</i> and the <i>Morning Post</i> + remain hostile and obstructive to the expression of international ideas. + Most of our elder statesmen seem to have learnt nothing and forgotten + nothing during the years of wildest change the world has ever known. But + in the general mind of the British peoples the movement of opinion from a + narrow imperialism towards internationalism has been wide and swift. And + it continues steadily. One can trace week by week and almost day by day + the Americanization of the British conception of the Allied War Aims. It + may be interesting to reproduce here three communications upon this + question made at different times by the present writer to the press. The + circumstances of their publication are significant. The first is in + substance identical with a letter which was sent to the <i>Times</i> late + in May, 1917, and rejected as being altogether too revolutionary. For + nowadays the correspondence in the <i>Times</i> has ceased to be an + impartial expression of public opinion. The correspondence of the <i>Times</i> + is now apparently selected and edited in accordance with the views upon + public policy held by the acting editor for the day. More and more has + that paper become the organ of a sort of Oxford Imperialism, three or four + years behind the times and very ripe and “expert.” The letter + is here given as it was finally printed in the issue of the <i>Daily + Chronicle</i> for June 4th, 1917, under the heading, “Wanted a + Statement of Imperial Policy.” + </p> + <p> + Sir,—The time seems to have come for much clearer statements of + outlook and intention from this country than it has hitherto been possible + to make. The entry of America into the war and the banishment of autocracy + and aggressive diplomacy from Russia have enormously cleared the air, and + the recent great speech of General Smuts at the Savoy Hotel is probably + only the first of a series of experiments in statement. It is desirable + alike to clear our own heads, to unify our efforts, and to give the + nations of the world some assurance and standard for our national conduct + in the future, that we should now define the Idea of our Empire and its + relation to the world outlook much more clearly than has ever hitherto + been done. Never before in the history of mankind has opinion counted for + so much and persons and organizations for so little as in this war. Never + before has the need for clear ideas, widely understood and consistently + sustained, been so commandingly vital. + </p> + <p> + What do we mean by our Empire, and what is its relation to that universal + desire of mankind, the permanent rule of peace and justice in the world? + The whole world will be the better for a very plain answer to that + question. + </p> + <p> + Is it not time for us British not merely to admit to ourselves, but to + assure the world that our Empire as it exists to-day is a provisional + thing, that in scarcely any part of the world do we regard it as more than + an emergency arrangement, as a necessary association that must give place + ultimately to the higher synthesis of a world league, that here we hold as + trustees and there on account of strategic considerations that may + presently disappear, and that though we will not contemplate the + replacement of our flag anywhere by the flag of any other competing + nation, though we do hope to hold together with our kin and with those who + increasingly share our tradition and our language, nevertheless we are + prepared to welcome great renunciations of our present ascendency and + privileges in the interests of mankind as a whole. We need to make the + world understand that we do not put our nation nor our Empire before the + commonwealth of man. Unless presently we are to follow Germany along the + tragic path her national vanity and her world ambitions have made for her, + that is what we have to make clear now. It is not only our duty to + mankind, it is also the sane course for our own preservation. + </p> + <p> + Is it not the plain lesson of this stupendous and disastrous war that + there is no way to secure civilization from destruction except by an + impartial control and protection in the interests of the whole human race, + a control representing the best intelligence of mankind, of these main + causes of war. + </p> + <p> + (1) The politically undeveloped tropics; + </p> + <p> + (2) Shipping and international trade; and + </p> + <p> + (3) Small nationalities and all regions in a state of political impotence + or confusion? + </p> + <p> + It is our case against the Germans that in all these three cases they have + subordinated every consideration of justice and the general human welfare + to a monstrous national egotism. That argument has a double edge. At + present there is a vigorous campaign in America, Russia, the neutral + countries generally, to represent British patriotism as equally egotistic, + and our purpose in this war as a mere parallel to the German purpose. In + the same manner, though perhaps with less persistency, France and Italy + are also caricatured. We are supposed to be grabbing at Mesopotamia and + Palestine, France at Syria; Italy is represented as pursuing a + Machiavellian policy towards the unfortunate Greek republicans, with her + eyes on the Greek islands and Greece in Asia. Is it not time that these + base imputations were repudiated clearly and conclusively by our Alliance? + And is it not time that we began to discuss in much more frank and + definite terms than has hitherto been done, the nature of the + international arrangement that will be needed to secure the safety of such + liberated populations as those of Palestine, of the Arab regions of the + old Turkish empire, of Armenia, of reunited Poland, and the like? + </p> + <p> + I do not mean here mere diplomatic discussions and “understandings,” + I mean such full and plain statements as will be spread through the whole + world and grasped and assimilated by ordinary people everywhere, + statements by which we, as a people, will be prepared to stand or fall. + </p> + <p> + Almost as urgent is the need for some definite statement about Africa. + General Smuts has warned not only the Empire, but the whole world of the + gigantic threat to civilization that lies in the present division of + Africa between various keenly competitive European Powers, any one of + which will be free to misuse the great natural resources at its disposal + and to arm millions of black soldiers for aggression. A mere elimination + of Germany from Africa will not solve that difficulty. What we have to + eliminate is not this nation or that, but the system of national shoving + and elbowing, the treatment of Africa as the board for a game of + beggar-my-neighbour-and-damn-the-niggers, in which a few syndicates, + masquerading as national interests, snatch a profit to the infinite loss + of all mankind. We want a lowering of barriers and a unification of + interests, we want an international control of these disputed regions, to + override nationalist exploitation. The whole world wants it. It is a + chastened and reasonable world we live in to-day, and the time for white + reason and the wide treatment of these problems is now. + </p> + <p> + Finally, the time is drawing near when the Egyptian and the nations of + India will ask us, “Are things going on for ever here as they go on + now, or are we to look for the time when we, too, like the Africander, the + Canadian and the Australian, will be your confessed and equal partners?” + Would it not be wise to answer that question in the affirmative before the + voice in which it is asked grows thick with anger? In Egypt, for example, + we are either robbers very like—except for a certain difference in + touch—the Germans in Belgium, or we are honourable trustees. It is + our claim and pride to be honourable trustees. Nothing so becomes a + trustee as a cheerful openness of disposition. Great Britain has to table + her world policy. It is a thing overdue. No doubt we have already a + literature of liberal imperialism and a considerable accumulation of + declarations by this statesman or that. But what is needed is a + formulation much more representative, official and permanent than that, + something that can be put beside President Wilson’s clear rendering + of the American idea. We want all our peoples to understand, and we want + all mankind to understand that our Empire is not a net about the world in + which the progress of mankind is entangled, but a self-conscious political + system working side by side with the other democracies of the earth, + preparing the way for, and prepared at last to sacrifice and merge itself + in, the world confederation of free and equal peoples. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0010" id="link2H_4_0010"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + ' 2 + </h2> + <p> + This letter was presently followed up by an article in the <i>Daily News</i>, + entitled “A Reasonable Man’s Peace.” This article + provoked a considerable controversy in the imperialist press, and it was + reprinted as a pamphlet by a Free Trade organization, which distributed + over 200,000 copies. It is particularly interesting to note, in view of + what follows it, that it was attacked with great virulence in the <i>Evening + News</i>, the little fierce mud-throwing brother of the <i>Daily Mail</i>. + </p> + <p> + The international situation at the present time is beyond question the + most wonderful that the world has ever seen. There is not a country in the + world in which the great majority of sensible people are not passionately + desirous of peace, of an enduring peace, and—the war goes on. The + conditions of peace can now be stated, in general terms that are as + acceptable to a reasonable man in Berlin as they are to a reasonable man + in Paris or London or Petrograd or Constantinople. There are to be no + conquests, no domination of recalcitrant populations, no bitter insistence + upon vindictive penalties, and there must be something in the nature of a + world-wide League of Nations to keep the peace securely in future, to + “make the world safe for democracy,” and maintain + international justice. To that the general mind of the world has come + to-day. + </p> + <p> + Why, then, does the waste and killing go on? Why is not the Peace + Conference sitting now? + </p> + <p> + Manifestly because a small minority of people in positions of peculiar + advantage, in positions of trust and authority, and particularly the + German reactionaries, prevent or delay its assembling. + </p> + <p> + The answer which seems to suffice in all the Allied countries is that the + German Imperial Government—that the German Imperial Government alone—stands + in the way, that its tradition is incurably a tradition of conquest and + aggression, that until German militarism is overthrown, etc. Few people in + the Allied countries will dispute that that is broadly true. But is it the + whole and complete truth? Is there nothing more to be done on our side? + Let us put a question that goes to the very heart of the problem. Why does + the great mass of the German people still cling to its incurably + belligerent Government? + </p> + <p> + The answer to that question is not overwhelmingly difficult. The German + people sticks to its militarist imperialism as Mazeppa stuck to his horse; + because it is bound to it, and the wolves pursue. The attentive student of + the home and foreign propaganda literature of the German Government will + realize that the case made by German imperialism, the main argument by + which it sticks to power, is this, that the Allied Governments are also + imperialist, that they also aim at conquest and aggression, that for + Germany the choice is world empire or downfall and utter ruin. This is the + argument that holds the German people stiffly united. For most men in most + countries it would be a convincing argument, strong enough to override + considerations of right and wrong. I find that I myself am of this way of + thinking, that whether England has done right or wrong in the past—and + I have sometimes criticized my country very bitterly—I will not + endure the prospect of seeing her at the foot of some victorious foreign + nation. Neither will any German who matters. Very few people would respect + a German who did. But the case for the Allies is that this great argument + by which, and by which alone, the German Imperial Government keeps its + grip upon the German people at the present time, and keeps them facing + their enemies, is untrue. The Allies declare that they do not want to + destroy the German people, they do not want to cripple the German people; + they want merely to see certain gaping wounds inflicted by Germany + repaired, and beyond that reasonable requirement they want nothing but to + be assured, completely assured, absolutely assured, against any further + aggressions on the part of Germany. + </p> + <p> + Is that true? Our leaders say so, and we believe them. We would not + support them if we did not. And if it is true, have the statesmen of the + Allies made it as transparently and convincingly clear to the German + people as possible? That is one of the supreme questions of the present + time. We cannot too earnestly examine it. Because in the answer to it lies + the reason why so many men were killed yesterday on the eastern and + western front, so many ships sunk, so much property destroyed, so much + human energy wasted for ever upon mere destruction, and why to-morrow and + the next day and the day after—through many months yet, perhaps—the + same killing and destroying must still go on. + </p> + <p> + In many respects this war has been an amazing display of human + inadaptability. The military history of the war has still to be written, + the grim story of machinery misunderstood, improvements resisted, + antiquated methods persisted in; but the broad facts are already before + the public mind. After three years of war the air offensive, the only + possible decisive blow, is still merely talked of. Not once nor twice only + have the Western Allies had victory within their grasp—and failed to + grip it. The British cavalry generals wasted the great invention of the + tanks as a careless child breaks a toy. At least equally remarkable is the + dragging inadaptability of European statecraft. Everywhere the failure of + ministers and statesmen to rise to the urgent definite necessities of the + present time is glaringly conspicuous. They seem to be incapable even of + thinking how the war may be brought to an end. They seem incapable of that + plain speaking to the world audience which alone can bring about a peace. + They keep on with the tricks and feints of a departed age. Both on the + side of the Allies and on the side of the Germans the declarations of + public policy remain childishly vague and disingenuous, childishly “diplomatic.” + They chaffer like happy imbeciles while civilization bleeds to death. It + was perhaps to be expected. Few, if any, men of over five-and-forty + completely readjust themselves to changed conditions, however novel and + challenging the changes may be, and nearly all the leading figures in + these affairs are elderly men trained in a tradition of diplomatic + ineffectiveness, and now overworked and overstrained to a pitch of + complete inelasticity. They go on as if it were still 1913. Could anything + be more palpably shifty and unsatisfactory, more senile, more feebly + artful, than the recent utterances of the German Chancellor? And, on our + own side— + </p> + <p> + Let us examine the three leading points about this peace business in which + this jaded statecraft is most apparent. + </p> + <p> + Let the reader ask himself the following questions:— + </p> + <p> + Does he know what the Allies mean to do with the problem of Central + Africa? It is the clear common sense of the African situation that while + these precious regions of raw material remain divided up between a number + of competitive European imperialisms, each resolutely set upon the + exploitation of its “possessions” to its own advantage and the + disadvantage of the others, there can be no permanent peace in the world. + There can be permanent peace in the world only when tropical and + sub-tropical Africa constitute a field free to the commercial enterprise + of every one irrespective of nationality, when this is no longer an area + of competition between nations. This is possible only under some supreme + international control. It requires no special knowledge nor wisdom to see + that. A schoolboy can see it. Any one but a statesman absolutely flaccid + with overstrain can see that. However difficult it may prove to work out + in detail, such an international control <i>must</i> therefore be worked + out. The manifest solution of the problem of the German colonies in Africa + is neither to return them to her nor deprive her of them, but to give her + a share in the pooled general control of mid-Africa. In that way she can + be deprived of all power for political mischief in Africa without + humiliation or economic injury. In that way, too, we can head off—and + in no other way can we head off—the power for evil, the power of + developing quarrels inherent in “imperialisms” other than + German. + </p> + <p> + But has the reader any assurance that this sane solution of the African + problem has the support of the Allied Governments? At best he has only a + vague persuasion. And consider how the matter looks “over there.” + The German Government assures the German people that the Allies intend to + cut off Germany from the African supply of raw material. That would mean + the practical destruction of German economic life. It is something far + more vital to the mass of Germans than any question of Belgium or + Alsace-Lorraine. It is, therefore, one of the ideas most potent in nerving + the overstrained German people to continue their fight. Why are we, and + why are the German people, not given some definite assurance in this + matter? Given reparation in Europe, is Germany to be allowed a fair share + in the control and trade of a pooled and neutralized Central Africa? + Sooner or later we must come to some such arrangement. Why not state it + plainly now? + </p> + <p> + A second question is equally essential to any really permanent settlement, + and it is one upon which these eloquent but unsatisfactory mouthpieces of + ours turn their backs with an equal resolution, and that is the fate of + the Ottoman Empire. What in plain English are we up to there? Whatever + happens, that Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back as it was before the war. + The idea of the German imperialist, the idea of our own little band of + noisy but influential imperialist vulgarians, is evidently a game of grab, + a perilous cutting up of these areas into jostling protectorates and + spheres of influence, from which either the Germans or the Allies + (according to the side you are on) are to be viciously shut out. On such a + basis this war is a war to the death. Neither Germany, France, Britain, + Italy, nor Russia can live prosperously if its trade and enterprise is + shut out from this cardinally important area. There is, therefore, no + alternative, if we are to have a satisfactory permanent pacification of + the world, but local self-development in these regions under honestly + conceived international control of police and transit and trade. Let it be + granted that that will be a difficult control to organize. None the less + it has to be attempted. It has to be attempted because <i>there is no + other way of peace</i>. But once that conception has been clearly + formulated, a second great motive why Germany should continue fighting + will have gone. + </p> + <p> + The third great issue about which there is nothing but fog and uncertainty + is the so-called “War After the War,” the idea of a permanent + economic alliance to prevent the economic recuperation of Germany. Upon + that idea German imperialism, in its frantic effort to keep its tormented + people fighting, naturally puts the utmost stress. The threat of War after + the War robs the reasonable German of his last inducement to turn on his + Government and insist upon peace. Shut out from all trade, unable to buy + food, deprived of raw material, peace would be as bad for Germany as war. + He will argue naturally enough and reasonably enough that he may as well + die fighting as starve. This is a far more vital issue to him than the + Belgian issue or Poland or Alsace-Lorraine. Our statesmen waste their + breath and slight our intelligence when these foreground questions are + thrust in front of the really fundamental matters. But as the mass of + sensible people in every country concerned, in Germany just as much as in + France or Great Britain, know perfectly well, unimpeded trade is good for + every one except a few rich adventurers, and restricted trade destroys + limitless wealth and welfare for mankind to make a few private fortunes or + secure an advantage for some imperialist clique. We want an end to this + economic strategy, we want an end to this plotting of Governmental cliques + against the general welfare. In such offences Germany has been the chief + of sinners, but which among the belligerent nations can throw the first + stone? Here again the way to the world’s peace, the only way to + enduring peace, lies through internationalism, through an international + survey of commercial treaties, through an international control of + inter-State shipping and transport rates. Unless the Allied statesmen fail + to understand the implications of their own general professions they mean + that. But why do they not say it plainly? Why do they not shout it so + compactly and loudly that all Germany will hear and understand? Why do + they justify imperialism to Germany? Why do they maintain a threatening + ambiguity towards Germany on all these matters? + </p> + <p> + By doing so they leave Germany no choice but a war of desperation. They + underline and endorse the claim of German imperialism that this is a war + for bare existence. They unify the German people. They prolong the war. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0011" id="link2H_4_0011"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + ' 3 + </h2> + <p> + Some weeks later I was able, at the invitation of the editor, to carry the + controversy against imperialism into the <i>Daily Mail</i>, which has + hitherto counted as a strictly imperialist paper. The article that follows + was published in the <i>Daily Mail</i> under the heading, “Are we + Sticking to the Point? A Discussion of War Aims.” + </p> + <p> + Has this War-Aims controversy really got down to essentials? Is the + purpose of this world conflict from first to last too complicated for + brevity, or can we boil it down into a statement compact enough for a + newspaper article? + </p> + <p> + And if we can, why is there all this voluminous, uneasy, unquenchable + disputation about War Aims? + </p> + <p> + As to the first question, I would say that the gist of the dispute between + the Central Powers and the world can be written easily without undue + cramping in an ordinary handwriting upon a postcard. It is the second + question that needs answering. And the reason why the second question has + to be asked and answered is this, that several of the Allies, and + particularly we British, are not being perfectly plain and simple-minded + in our answer to the first, that there is a division among us and in our + minds, and that our division is making us ambiguous in our behaviour, that + it is weakening and dividing our action and strengthening and + consolidating the enemy, and that unless we can drag this slurred-over + division of aim and spirit into the light of day and <i>settle it now</i>, + we are likely to remain double-minded to the end of the war, to split our + strength while the war continues and to come out of the settlement at the + end with nothing nearly worth the strain and sacrifice it has cost us. + </p> + <p> + And first, let us deal with that postcard and say what is the essential + aim of the war, the aim to which all other aims are subsidiary. It is, we + have heard repeated again and again by every statesman of importance in + every Allied country, to defeat and destroy military imperialism, to make + the world safe for ever against any such deliberate aggression as Germany + prepared for forty years and brought to a climax when she crossed the + Belgian frontier in 1914. We want to make anything of that kind on the + part of Germany or of any other Power henceforth impossible in this world. + That is our great aim. Whatever other objects may be sought in this war no + responsible statesman dare claim them as anything but subsidiary to that; + one can say, in fact, this is our sole aim, our other aims being but parts + of it. Better that millions should die now, we declare, than that hundreds + of millions still unborn should go on living, generation after generation, + under the black tyranny of this imperialist threat. + </p> + <p> + There is our common agreement. So far, at any rate, we are united. The + question I would put to the reader is this: Are we all logically, + sincerely, and fully carrying out the plain implications of this War Aim? + Or are we to any extent muddling about with it in such a way as to confuse + and disorganize our Allies, weaken our internal will, and strengthen the + enemy? + </p> + <p> + Now the plain meaning of this supreme declared War Aim is that we are + asking Germany to alter her ways. We are asking Germany to become a + different Germany. Either Germany has to be utterly smashed up and + destroyed or else Germany has to cease to be an aggressive military + imperialism. The former alternative is dismissed by most responsible + statesmen. They declare that they do not wish to destroy the German people + or the German nationality or the civilized life of Germany. I will not + enlarge here upon the tedium and difficulties such an undertaking would + present. I will dismiss it as being not only impossible, but also as an + insanely wicked project. The second alternative, therefore, remains as our + War Aim. I do not see how the sloppiest reasoner can evade that. As we do + not want to kill Germany we must want to change Germany. If we do not want + to wipe Germany off the face of the earth, then we want Germany to become + the prospective and trust-worthy friend of her fellow nations. And if + words have any meaning at all, that is saying that we are fighting to + bring about a Revolution in Germany. We want Germany to become a + democratically controlled State, such as is the United States to-day, with + open methods and pacific intentions, instead of remaining a clenched fist. + If we can bring that about we have achieved our War Aim; if we cannot, + then this struggle has been for us only such loss and failure as humanity + has never known before. + </p> + <p> + But do we, as a nation, stick closely to this clear and necessary, this + only possible, meaning of our declared War Aim? That great, clear-minded + leader among the Allies, that Englishman who more than any other single + man speaks for the whole English-speaking and Western-thinking community, + President Wilson, has said definitely that this is his meaning. America, + with him as her spokesman, is under no delusion; she is fighting + consciously for a German Revolution as the essential War Aim. We in Europe + do not seem to be so lucid. I think myself we have been, and are still, + fatally and disastrously not lucid. It is high time, and over, that we + cleared our minds and got down to the essentials of the war. We have + muddled about in blood and dirt and secondary issues long enough. + </p> + <p> + We in Britain are not clear-minded, I would point out, because we are + double-minded. No good end is served by trying to ignore in the fancied + interests of “unity” a division of spirit and intention that + trips us up at every step. We are, we declare, fighting for a complete + change in international methods, and we are bound to stick to the logical + consequences of that. We have placed ourselves on the side of democratic + revolution against autocratic monarchy, and we cannot afford to go on + shilly-shallying with that choice. We cannot in these days of black or + white play the part of lukewarm friends to freedom. I will not remind the + reader here of the horrible vacillations and inconsistencies of policy in + Greece that have prolonged the war and cost us wealth and lives beyond + measure, but President Wilson himself has reminded us pungently enough and + sufficiently enough of the follies and disingenuousness of our early + treatment of the Russian Revolution. What I want to point out here is the + supreme importance of a clear lead in this matter <i>now</i> in order that + we should state our War Aims effectively. + </p> + <p> + In every war there must be two sets of War Aims kept in mind; we ought to + know what we mean to do in the event of victory so complete that we can + dictate what terms we choose, and we ought to know what, in the event of a + not altogether conclusive tussle, are the minimum terms that we should + consider justified us in a discontinuance of the tussle. Now, unless our + leading statesmen are humbugs and unless we are prepared to quarrel with + America in the interests of the monarchist institutions of Europe, we + should, in the event of an overwhelming victory, destroy both the + Hohenzollern and Hapsburg Imperialisms, and that means, if it means + anything at all and is not mere lying rhetoric, that we should insist upon + Germany becoming free and democratic, that is to say, in effect if not in + form republican, and upon a series of national republics, Polish, + Hungarian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, and the like, in Eastern Europe, + grouped together if possible into congenial groups—crowned republics + it might be in some cases, in the case of the Serb for example, but in no + case too much crowned—that we should join with this renascent + Germany and with these thus liberalized Powers and with our Allies and + with the neutrals in one great League of Free Nations, trading freely with + one another, guaranteeing each other freedom, and maintaining a world-wide + peace and disarmament and a new reign of law for mankind. + </p> + <p> + If that is not what we are out for, then I do not understand what we are + out for; there is dishonesty and trickery and diplomacy and foolery in the + struggle, and I am no longer whole-hearted for such a half-hearted war. If + after a complete victory we are to bolster up the Hohenzollerns, + Hapsburgs, and their relations, set up a constellation of more cheating + little subordinate kings, and reinstate that system of diplomacies and + secret treaties and secret understandings, that endless drama of + international threatening and plotting, that never-ending arming, that has + led us after a hundred years of waste and muddle to the supreme tragedy of + this war, then the world is not good enough for me and I shall be glad to + close my eyes upon it. I am not alone in these sentiments. I believe that + in writing thus I am writing the opinion of the great mass of reasonable + British, French, Italian, Russian, and American men. I believe, too, that + this is the desire also of great numbers of Germans, and that they would, + if they could believe us, gladly set aside their present rulers to achieve + this plain common good for mankind. + </p> + <p> + But, the reader will say, what evidence is there of any republican feeling + in Germany? That is always the objection made to any reasonable discussion + of the war—and as most of us are denied access to German papers, it + is difficult to produce quotations; and even when one does, there are + plenty of fools to suggest and believe that the entire German Press is an + elaborate camouflage. Yet in the German Press there is far more criticism + of militant imperialism than those who have no access to it can imagine. + There is far franker criticism of militarism in Germany than there is of + reactionary Toryism in this country, and it is more free to speak its + mind. + </p> + <p> + That, however, is a question by the way. It is not the main thing that I + have to say here. What I have to say here is that in Great Britain—I + will not discuss the affairs of any of our Allies—there are groups + and classes of people, not numerous, not representative, but placed in + high and influential positions and capable of free and public utterance, + who are secretly and bitterly hostile to this great War Aim, which + inspires all the Allied peoples. These people are permitted to deny—our + peculiar censorship does not hamper them—loudly and publicly that we + are fighting for democracy and world freedom; “Tosh,” they say + to our dead in the trenches, “you died for a mistake”; they + jeer at this idea of a League of Nations making an end to war, an idea + that has inspired countless brave lads to face death and such pains and + hardships as outdo even death itself; they perplex and irritate our Allies + by propounding schemes for some precious economic league of the British + Empire—that is to treat all “foreigners” with a common + base selfishness and stupid hatred—and they intrigue with the most + reactionary forces in Russia. + </p> + <p> + These British reactionaries openly, and with perfect impunity, represent + our war as a thing as mean and shameful as Germany’s attack on + Belgium, and they do it because generosity and justice in the world is as + terrible to them as dawn is to the creatures of the night. Our Tories + blundered into this great war, not seeing whither it would take them. In + particular it is manifest now by a hundred signs that they dread the fall + of monarchy in Germany and Austria. Far rather would they make the most + abject surrenders to the Kaiser than deal with a renascent Republican + Germany. The recent letter of Lord Lansdowne, urging a peace with German + imperialism, was but a feeler from the pacifist side of this most + un-English, and unhappily most influential, section of our public life. + Lord Lansdowne’s letter was the letter of a Peer who fears + revolution more than national dishonour. + </p> + <p> + But it is the truculent wing of this same anti-democratic movement that is + far more active. While our sons suffer and die for their comforts and + conceit, these people scheme to prevent any communication between the + Republican and Socialist classes in Germany and the Allied population. At + any cost this class of pampered and privileged traitors intend to have + peace while the Kaiser is still on his throne. If not they face a new + world—in which their part will be small indeed. And with the utmost + ingenuity they maintain a dangerous vagueness about the Allied peace + terms, <i>with the sole object of preventing a revolutionary movement in + Germany</i>. + </p> + <p> + Let me put it to the reader exactly why our failure to say plainly and + exactly and conclusively what we mean to do about a score of points, and + particularly about German economic life after the war, paralyses the + penitents and friends and helpers that we could now find in Germany. Let + me ask the reader to suppose himself a German in Germany at the present + time. Of course if he was, he is sure that he would hate the Kaiser as the + source of this atrocious war, he would be bitterly ashamed of the Belgian + iniquity, of the submarine murders, and a score of such stains upon his + national honour; and he would want to alter his national system and make + peace. Hundreds of thousands of Germans are in that mood now. But as most + of us have had to learn, a man may be bitterly ashamed of this or that + incident in his country’s history—what Englishman, for + instance, can be proud of Glencoe?—he may disbelieve in half its + institutions and still love his country far too much to suffer the thought + of its destruction. I prefer to see my country right, but if it comes to + the pinch and my country sins I will fight to save her from the + destruction her sins may have brought upon her. That is the natural way of + a man. + </p> + <p> + But suppose a German wished to try to start a revolutionary movement in + Germany at the present time, have we given him any reason at all for + supposing that a Germany liberated and democratized, but, of course, + divided and weakened as she would be bound to be in the process, would get + better terms from the Allies than a Germany still facing them, militant, + imperialist, and wicked? He would have no reason for believing anything of + the sort. If we Allies are honest, then if a revolution started in Germany + to-day we should if anything lower the price of peace to Germany. But + these people who pretend to lead us will state nothing of the sort. For + them a revolution in Germany would be the signal for putting up the price + of peace. At any risk they are resolved that that German revolution shall + not happen. Your sane, good German, let me assert, is up against that as + hard as if he was a wicked one. And so, poor devil, he has to put his + revolutionary ideas away, they are hopeless ideas for him because of the + power of the British reactionary, they are hopeless because of the line we + as a nation take in this matter, and he has to go on fighting for his + masters. + </p> + <p> + A plain statement of our war aims that did no more than set out honestly + and convincingly the terms the Allies would make with a democratic + republican Germany—republican I say, because where a scrap of + Hohenzollern is left to-day there will be a fresh militarism to-morrow—would + absolutely revolutionize the internal psychology of Germany. We should no + longer face a solid people. We should have replaced the false issue of + Germany and Britain fighting for the hegemony of Europe, the lie upon + which the German Government has always traded, and in which our extreme + Tory Press has always supported the German Government, by the true issue, + which is freedom versus imperialism, the League of Nations versus that net + of diplomatic roguery and of aristocratic, plutocratic, and autocratic + greed and conceit which dragged us all into this vast welter of bloodshed + and loss. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0012" id="link2H_4_0012"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VI. — THE WAR AIMS OF THE WESTERN ALLIES + </h2> + <p> + Here, quite compactly, is the plain statement of the essential cause and + process of the war to which I would like to see the Allied Foreign Offices + subscribe, and which I would like to have placed plainly before the German + mind. It embodies much that has been learnt and thought out since this war + began, and I think it is much truer and more fundamental than that mere + raging against German “militarism,” upon which our politicians + and press still so largely subsist. + </p> + <p> + The enormous development of war methods and war material within the last + fifty years has made war so horrible and destructive that it is impossible + to contemplate a future for mankind from which it has not been eliminated; + the increased facilities of railway, steamship, automobile travel and air + navigation have brought mankind so close together that ordinary human life + is no longer safe anywhere in the boundaries of the little states in which + it was once secure. In some fashion it is now necessary to achieve + sufficient human unity to establish a world peace and save the future of + mankind. + </p> + <p> + In one or other of two ways only is that unification possible. Either men + may set up a common league to keep the peace of the earth, or one state + must ultimately become so great and powerful as to repeat for all the + world what Rome did for Europe two thousand years ago. Either we must have + human unity by a league of existing states or by an Imperial Conquest. The + former is now the declared Aim of our country and its Allies; the latter + is manifestly the ambition of the present rulers of Germany. Whatever the + complications may have been in the earlier stages of the war, due to + treaties that are now dead letters and agreements that are extinct, the + essential issue now before every man in the world is this: Is the unity of + mankind to be the unity of a common freedom, in which every race and + nationality may participate with complete self-respect, playing its part, + according to its character, in one great world community, or is it to be + reached—and it can only be so reached through many generations of + bloodshed and struggle still, even if it can be ever reached in this way + at all—through conquest and a German hegemony? + </p> + <p> + While the rulers of Germany to-day are more openly aggressive and + imperialist than they were in August, 1914, the Allies arrayed against + them have made great progress in clearing up and realizing the instincts + and ideals which brought them originally into the struggle. The German + government offers the world to-day a warring future in which Germany alone + is to be secure and powerful and proud. <i>Mankind will not endure that</i>. + The Allies offer the world more and more definitely the scheme of an + organized League of Free Nations, a rule of law and justice about the + earth. To fight for that and for no other conceivable end, the United + States of America, with the full sympathy and co-operation of every state + in the western hemisphere, has entered the war. The British Empire, in the + midst of the stress of the great war, has set up in Dublin a Convention of + Irishmen of all opinions with the fullest powers of deciding upon the + future of their country. If Ireland were not divided against herself she + could be free and equal with England to-morrow. It is the open intention + of Great Britain to develop representative government, where it has not + hitherto existed, in India and Egypt, to go on steadfastly increasing the + share of the natives of these countries in the government of their own + lands, until they too become free and equal members of the world league. + Neither France nor Italy nor Britain nor America has ever tampered with + the shipping of other countries except in time of war, and the trade of + the British Empire has been impartially open to all the world. The + extra-national “possessions,” the so-called “subject + nations” in the Empires of Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, are, + in fact, possessions held in trust against the day when the League of Free + Nations will inherit for mankind. + </p> + <p> + Is it to be union by conquest or is it to be union by league? For any sort + of man except the German the question is, Will you be a free citizen or + will you be an underling to the German imperialism? For the German now the + question is a far graver and more tragic one. For him it is this: “You + belong to a people not now increasing very rapidly, a numerous people, but + not so numerous as some of the great peoples of the world, a people very + highly trained, very well drilled and well armed, perhaps as well trained + and drilled and equipped as ever it will be. The collapse of Russian + imperialism has made you safe if now you can get peace, and you <i>can</i> + get a peace now that will neither destroy you nor humiliate you nor open + up the prospect of fresh wars. The Allies offer you such a peace. To + accept it, we must warn you plainly, means refusing to go on with the + manifest intentions of your present rulers, which are to launch you and + your children and your children’s children upon a career of struggle + for war predominance, which may no doubt inflict untold deprivations and + miseries upon the rest of mankind, but whose end in the long run, for + Germany and things German, can be only Judgment and Death.” + </p> + <p> + In such terms as these the Oceanic Allies could now state their war-will + and carry the world straightway into a new phase of human history. They + could but they do not. For alas! not one of them is free from the + entanglements of past things; when we look for the wisdom of statesmen we + find the cunning of politicians; when open speech and plain reason might + save the world, courts, bureaucrats, financiers and profiteers conspire. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0013" id="link2H_4_0013"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VII. — THE FUTURE OF MONARCHY + </h2> + <p> + From the very outset of this war it was manifest to the clear-headed + observer that only the complete victory of German imperialism could save + the dynastic system in Europe from the fate that it had challenged. That + curious system had been the natural and unplanned development of the + political complications of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Two + systems of monarchies, the Bourbon system and the German, then ruled + Europe between them. With the latter was associated the tradition of the + European unity under the Roman empire; all the Germanic monarchs had an + itch to be called Caesar. The Kaiser of the Austro-Hungarian empire and + the Czar had, so to speak, the prior claim to the title. The Prussian king + set up as a Caesar in 1871; Queen Victoria became the Caesar of India + (Kaisir-i-Hind) under the auspices of Lord Beaconsfield, and last and + least, that most detestable of all Coburgers, Ferdinand of Bulgaria, gave + Kaiserism a touch of quaint absurdity by setting up as Czar of Bulgaria. + The weakening of the Bourbon system by the French revolution and the + Napoleonic adventure cleared the way for the complete ascendancy of the + Germanic monarchies in spite of the breaking away of the United States + from that system. + </p> + <p> + After 1871, a constellation of quasi-divine Teutonic monarchs, of which + the German Emperor, the German Queen Victoria, the German Czar, were the + greatest stars, formed a caste apart, intermarried only among themselves, + dominated the world and was regarded with a mystical awe by the ignorant + and foolish in most European countries. The marriages, the funerals, the + coronations, the obstetrics of this amazing breed of idols were matters of + almost universal worship. The Czar and Queen Victoria professed also to be + the heads of religion upon earth. The court-centered diplomacies of the + more firmly rooted monarchies steered all the great liberating movements + of the nineteenth century into monarchical channels. Italy was made a + monarchy; Greece, the motherland of republics, was handed over to a needy + scion of the Danish royal family; the sturdy peasants of Bulgaria suffered + from a kindred imposition. Even Norway was saddled with as much of a king + as it would stand, as a condition of its independence. At the dawn of the + twentieth century republican freedom seemed a remote dream beyond the + confines of Switzerland and France—and it had no very secure air in + France. Reactionary scheming has been an intermittent fever in the French + republic for six and forty years. The French foreign office is still + undemocratic in tradition and temper. But for the restless disloyalty of + the Hohenzollerns this German kingly caste might be dominating the world + to this day. + </p> + <p> + Of course the stability of this Teutonic dynastic system in Europe—which + will presently seem to the student of history so curious a halting-place + upon the way to human unity—rested very largely upon the maintenance + of peace. It was the failure to understand this on the part of the German + and Bulgarian rulers in particular that has now brought all monarchy to + the question. The implicit theory that supported the intermarrying German + royal families in Europe was that their inter-relationship and their + aloofness from their subjects was a mitigation of national and racial + animosities. In the days when Queen Victoria was the grandmother of Europe + this was a plausible argument. King, Czar and Emperor, or Emperor and + Emperor would meet, and it was understood that these meetings were the + lubrication of European affairs. The monarchs married largely, + conspicuously, and very expensively for our good. Royal funerals, + marriages, christenings, coronations, and jubilees interrupted traffic and + stimulated trade everywhere. They seemed to give a <i>raison d'jtre</i> + for mankind. It is the Emperor William and the Czar Ferdinand who have + betrayed not only humanity but their own strange caste by shattering all + these pleasant illusions. The wisdom of Kant is justified, and we know now + that kings cause wars. It needed the shock of the great war to bring home + the wisdom of that old Scotchman of Kvnigsberg to the mind of the ordinary + man. Moreover in support of the dynastic system was the fact that it did + exist as the system in possession, and all prosperous and intelligent + people are chary of disturbing existing things. Life is full of vestigial + structures, and it is a long way to logical perfection. Let us keep on, + they would argue, with what we have. And another idea which, rightly or + wrongly, made men patient with the emperors and kings was an exaggerated + idea of the insecurity of republican institutions. + </p> + <p> + You can still hear very old dull men say gravely that “kings are + better than pronunciamentos”; there was an article upon Greece to + this effect quite recently in that uncertain paper <i>The New Statesman</i>. + Then a kind of illustrative gesture would be made to the South American + republics, although the internal disturbances of the South American + republics have diminished to very small dimensions in the last three + decades and although pronunciamentos rarely disturb the traffic in + Switzerland, the United States, or France. But there can be no doubt that + the influence of the Germanic monarchy up to the death of Queen Victoria + upon British thought was in the direction of estrangement from the two + great modern republics and in the direction of assistance and propitiation + to Germany. We surrendered Heligoland, we made great concessions to German + colonial ambitions, we allowed ourselves to be jockeyed into a phase of + dangerous hostility to France. A practice of sneering at things American + has died only very recently out of English journalism and literature, as + any one who cares to consult the bound magazines of the ‘seventies + and eighties may soon see for himself. It is well too in these days not to + forget Colonel Marchand, if only to remember that such a clash must never + recur. But in justice to our monarchy we must remember that after the + death of Queen Victoria, the spirit, if not the forms, of British kingship + was greatly modified by the exceptional character and ability of King + Edward VII. He was curiously anti-German in spirit; he had essentially + democratic instincts; in a few precious years he restored good will + between France and Great Britain. It is no slight upon his successor to + doubt whether any one could have handled the present opportunities and + risks of monarchy in Great Britain as Edward could have handled them. + </p> + <p> + Because no doubt if monarchy is to survive in the British Empire it must + speedily undergo the profoundest modification. The old state of affairs + cannot continue. The European dynastic system, based upon the + intermarriage of a group of mainly German royal families, is dead to-day; + it is freshly dead, but it is as dead as the rule of the Incas. It is idle + to close our eyes to this fact. The revolution in Russia, the setting up + of a republic in China, demonstrating the ripeness of the East for free + institutions, the entry of the American republics into world politics—these + things slam the door on any idea of working back to the old + nineteenth-century system. People calls to people. “No peace with + the Hohenzollerns” is a cry that carries with it the final + repudiation of emperors and kings. The man in the street will assure you + he wants no diplomatic peace. Beyond the unstable shapes of the present + the political forms of the future rise now so clearly that they are the + common talk of men. Kant’s lucid thought told us long ago that the + peace of the world demanded a world union of republics. That is a + commonplace remark now in every civilized community. + </p> + <p> + The stars in their courses, the logic of circumstances, the everyday needs + and everyday intelligence of men, all these things march irresistibly + towards a permanent world peace based on democratic republicanism. The + question of the future of monarchy is not whether it will be able to + resist and overcome that trend; it has as little chance of doing that as + the Lama of Thibet has of becoming Emperor of the Earth. It is whether it + will resist openly, become the centre and symbol of a reactionary + resistance, and have to be abolished and swept away altogether everywhere, + as the Romanoffs have already been swept away in Russia, or whether it + will be able in this country and that to adapt itself to the necessities + of the great age that dawns upon mankind, to take a generous and helpful + attitude towards its own modification, and so survive, for a time at any + rate, in that larger air. + </p> + <p> + It is the fashion for the apologists of monarchy in the British Empire to + speak of the British system as a crowned republic. That is an attractive + phrase to people of republican sentiments. It is quite conceivable that + the British Empire may be able to make that phrase a reality and that the + royal line may continue, a line of hereditary presidents, with some of the + ancient trappings and something of the picturesque prestige that, as the + oldest monarchy in Europe, it has to-day. Two kings in Europe have already + gone far towards realizing this conception of a life president; both the + King of Italy and the King of Norway live as simply as if they were in the + White House and are far more accessible. Along that line the British + monarchy must go if it is not to go altogether. Will it go along those + lines? + </p> + <p> + There are many reasons for hoping that it will do so. The <i>Times</i> has + styled the crown the “golden link” of the empire. Australians + and Canadians, it was argued, had little love for the motherland but the + greatest devotion to the sovereign, and still truer was this of Indians, + Egyptians, and the like. It might be easy to press this theory of devotion + too far, but there can be little doubt that the British Crown does at + present stand as a symbol of unity over diversity such as no other crown, + unless it be that of Austria-Hungary, can be said to do. The British crown + is not like other crowns; it may conceivably take a line of its own and + emerge—possibly a little more like a hat and a little less like a + crown—from trials that may destroy every other monarchial system in + the world. + </p> + <p> + Now many things are going on behind the scenes, many little indications + peep out upon the speculative watcher and vanish again; but there is very + little that is definite to go upon at the present time to determine how + far the monarchy will rise to the needs of this great occasion. Certain + acts and changes, the initiative to which would come most gracefully from + royalty itself, could be done at this present time. They may be done quite + soon. Upon the doing of them wait great masses of public opinion. The + first of these things is for the British monarchy to sever itself + definitely from the German dynastic system, with which it is so fatally + entangled by marriage and descent, and to make its intention of becoming + henceforth more and more British in blood as well as spirit, unmistakably + plain. This idea has been put forth quite prominently in the <i>Times</i>. + The king has been asked to give his countenance to the sweeping away of + all those restrictions first set up by George the Third, upon the marriage + of the Royal Princes with British, French and American subjects. The + British Empire is very near the limit of its endurance of a kingly caste + of Germans. The choice of British royalty between its peoples and its + cousins cannot be indefinitely delayed. Were it made now publicly and + boldly, there can be no doubt that the decision would mean a renascence of + monarchy, a considerable outbreak of royalist enthusiasm in the Empire. + There are times when a king or queen must need be dramatic and must a + little anticipate occasions. It is not seemly to make concessions + perforce; kings may not make obviously unwilling surrenders; it is the + indecisive kings who lose their crowns. + </p> + <p> + No doubt the Anglicization of the royal family by national marriages would + gradually merge that family into the general body of the British peerage. + Its consequent loss of distinction might be accompanied by an associated + fading out of function, until the King became at last hardly more + functional than was the late Duke of Norfolk as premier peer. Possibly + that is the most desirable course from many points of view. + </p> + <p> + It must be admitted that the abandonment of marriages within the royal + caste and a bold attempt to introduce a strain of British blood in the + royal family does not in itself fulfil all that is needed if the British + king is indeed to become the crowned president of his people and the + nominal and accepted leader of the movement towards republican + institutions. A thing that is productive of an enormous amount of + republican talk in Great Britain is the suspicion—I believe an + ill-founded suspicion—that there are influences at work at court + antagonistic to republican institutions in friendly states and that there + is a disposition even to sacrifice the interests of the liberal allies to + dynastic sympathies. These things are not to be believed, but it would be + a feat of vast impressiveness if there were something like a royal and + public repudiation of the weaknesses of cousinship. The behaviour of the + Allies towards that great Balkan statesman Venizelos, the sacrificing of + the friendly Greek republicans in favour of the manifestly treacherous + King of Greece, has produced the deepest shame and disgust in many + quarters that are altogether friendly, that are even warmly “loyal” + to the British monarchy. + </p> + <p> + And in a phase of tottering thrones it is very undesirable that the + British habit of asylum should be abused. We have already in England the + dethroned monarch of a friendly republic; he is no doubt duly looked + after. In the future there may be a shaking of the autumnal boughs and a + shower of emperors and kings. We do not want Great Britain to become a + hotbed of reactionary plotting and the starting-point of restoration raids + into the territories of emancipated peoples. This is particularly + desirable if presently, after the Kaiser’s death—which by all + the statistics of Hohenzollern mortality cannot be delayed now for many + years—the present Crown Prince goes a-wandering. We do not want any + German ex-monarchs; Sweden is always open to them and friendly, and to + Sweden they ought to go; and particularly do British people dread an + irruption of Hohenzollerns or Coburgers. Almost as undesirable would be + the arrival of the Czar and Czarina. It is supremely important that no + wind of suspicion should blow between us and the freedom of Russia. After + the war even more than during the war will the enemy be anxious to sow + discord between the great Russian-speaking and English-speaking + democracies. Quite apart from the scandal of their inelegant + domesticities, the establishment of the Czar and Czarina in England with + frequent and easy access to our royal family may be extraordinarily + unfortunate for the British monarchy. I will confess a certain sympathy + for the Czar myself. He is not an evil figure, he is not a strong figure, + but he has that sort of weakness, that failure in decision, which trails + revolution in its wake. He has ended one dynasty already. The British + royal family owes it to itself, that he bring not the infection of his + misfortunes to Windsor. + </p> + <p> + The security of the British monarchy lies in such a courageous severance + of its destinies from the Teutonic dynastic system. Will it make that + severance? There I share an almost universal ignorance. The loyalty of the + British is not to what kings are too prone to call “my person,” + not to a chosen and admired family, but to a renascent mankind. We have + fought in this war for Belgium, for France, for general freedom, for + civilization and the whole future of mankind, far more than for ourselves. + We have not fought for a king. We are discovering in that spirit of human + unity that lies below the idea of a League of Free Nations the real + invisible king of our heart and race. But we will very gladly go on with + our task under a nominal king unless he hampers us in the task that grows + ever more plainly before us. ... That, I think, is a fair statement of + British public opinion on this question. But every day when I am in London + I walk past Buckingham Palace to lunch at my club, and I look at that not + very expressive fagade and wonder—and we all wonder—what + thoughts are going on behind it and what acts are being conceived there. + Out of it there might yet come some gesture of acceptance magnificent + enough to set beside President Wilson’s magnificent declaration of + war. ... + </p> + <p> + These are things in the scales of fate. I will not pretend to be able to + guess even which way the scales will swing. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0014" id="link2H_4_0014"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + VIII. — THE PLAIN NECESSITY FOR A LEAGUE + </h2> + <p> + Great as the sacrifices of prejudice and preconception which any effective + realization of this idea of a League of Free Nations will demand, + difficult as the necessary delegations of sovereignty must be, none the + less are such sacrifices and difficulties unavoidable. People in France + and Italy and Great Britain and Germany alike have to subdue their minds + to the realization that some such League is now a necessity for them if + their peace and national life are to continue. There is no prospect before + them but either some such League or else great humiliation and disastrous + warfare driving them down towards social dissolution; and for the United + States it is only a question of a little longer time before the same + alternatives have to be faced. + </p> + <p> + Whether this war ends in the complete defeat of Germany and German + imperialism, or in a revolutionary modernization of Germany, or in a + practical triumph for the Hohenzollerns, are considerations that affect + the nature and scope of the League, but do not affect its essential + necessity. In the first two cases the League of Free Nations will be a + world league including Germany as a principal partner, in the latter case + the League of Free Nations will be a defensive league standing steadfast + against the threat of a world imperialism, and watching and restraining + with one common will the homicidal maniac in its midst. But in all these + cases there can be no great alleviation of the evils that now blacken and + threaten to ruin human life altogether, unless all the civilized and + peace-seeking peoples of the world are pledged and locked together under a + common law and a common world policy. There must rather be an + intensification of these evils. There must be wars more evil than this war + continuing this war, and more destructive of civilized life. There can be + no peace and hope for our race but an organized peace and hope, armed + against disturbance as a state is armed against mad, ferocious, and + criminal men. + </p> + <p> + Now, there are two chief arguments, running one into the other, for the + necessity of merging our existing sovereignties into a greater and, if + possible, a world-wide league. The first is the present geographical + impossibility of nearly all the existing European states and empires; and + the second is the steadily increasing disproportion between the tortures + and destructions inflicted by modern warfare and any possible advantages + that may arise from it. Underlying both arguments is the fact that modern + developments of mechanical science have brought the nations of Europe + together into too close a proximity. This present war, more than anything + else, is a violent struggle between old political ideas and new + antagonistic conditions. + </p> + <p> + It is the unhappy usage of our schools and universities to study the + history of mankind only during periods of mechanical unprogressiveness. + The historical ideas of Europe range between the time when the Greeks were + going about the world on foot or horseback or in galleys or sailing ships + to the days when Napoleon, Wellington, and Nelson were going about at very + much the same pace in much the same vehicles and vessels. At the advent of + steam and electricity the muse of history holds her nose and shuts her + eyes. Science will study and get the better of a modern disease, as, for + example, sleeping sickness, in spite of the fact that it has no classical + standing; but our history schools would be shocked at the bare idea of + studying the effect of modern means of communication upon administrative + areas, large or small. This defect in our historical training has made our + minds politically sluggish. We fail to adapt readily enough. In small + things and great alike we are trying to run the world in areas marked out + in or before the eighteenth century, regardless of the fact that a man or + an army or an aeroplane can get in a few minutes or a few hours to points + that it would have taken days or weeks to reach under the old + foot-and-horse conditions. That matters nothing to the learned men who + instruct our statesmen and politicians. It matters everything from the + point of view of social and economic and political life. And the grave + fact to consider is that all the great states of Europe, except for the + unification of Italy and Germany, are still much of the size and in much + the same boundaries that made them strong and safe in the eighteenth + century, that is to say, in the closing years of the foot-horse period. + The British empire grew and was organized under those conditions, and had + to modify itself only a little to meet the needs of steam shipping. All + over the world are its linked possessions and its ports and coaling + stations and fastnesses on the trade routes. And British people still look + at the red-splashed map of the world with the profoundest + self-satisfaction, blind to the swift changes that are making that + scattered empire—if it is to remain an isolated system—almost + the most dangerous conceivable. + </p> + <p> + Let me ask the British reader who is disposed to sneer at the League of + Nations and say he is very well content with the empire, thank you, to get + his atlas and consider one or two propositions. And, first, let him think + of aviation. I can assure him, because upon this matter I have some + special knowledge, that long-distance air travel for men, for letters and + light goods and for bombs, is continually becoming more practicable. But + the air routes that air transport will follow must go over a certain + amount of land, for this reason that every few hundred miles at the + longest the machine must come down for petrol. A flying machine with a + safe non-stop range of 1500 miles is still a long way off. It may indeed + be permanently impracticable because there seems to be an upward limit to + the size of an aeroplane engine. And now will the reader take the map of + the world and study the air routes from London to the rest of the empire? + He will find them perplexing—if he wants them to be “All-Red.” + Happily this is not a British difficulty only. Will he next study the air + routes from Paris to the rest of the French possessions? And, finally, + will he study the air routes out of Germany to anywhere? The Germans are + as badly off as any people. But we are all badly off. So far as world air + transit goes any country can, if it chooses, choke any adjacent country. + Directly any trade difficulty breaks out, any country can begin a + vexatious campaign against its neighbour’s air traffic. It can + oblige it to alight at the frontier, to follow prescribed routes, to land + at specified places on those routes and undergo examinations that will + waste precious hours. But so far as I can see, no European statesman, + German or Allied, have begun to give their attention to this amazing + difficulty. Without a great pooling of air control, either a world-wide + pooling or a pooling at least of the Atlantic-Mediterranean Allies in one + Air League, the splendid peace possibilities of air transport—and + they are indeed splendid—must remain very largely a forbidden + possibility to mankind. + </p> + <p> + And as a second illustration of the way in which changing conditions are + altering political questions, let the reader take his atlas and consider + the case of that impregnable fastness, that great naval station, that Key + to the Mediterranean, Gibraltar. British boys are brought up on Gibraltar + and the Gibraltar idea. To the British imagination Gibraltar is almost as + sacred a national symbol as the lions in Trafalgar Square. Now, in his + atlas the reader will almost certainly find an inset map of this valuable + possession, coloured bright red. The inset map will have attached to it a + small scale of miles. From that he will be able to satisfy himself that + there is not an inch of the rock anywhere that is not within five miles or + less of Spanish land, and that there is rather more than a semicircle of + hills round the rock within a range of seven or eight miles. That is much + less than the range of a sixteen-inch gun. In other words, the Spaniards + are in a position to knock Gibraltar to bits whenever they want to do so, + or to smash and sink any ships in its harbour. They can hit it on every + side. Consider, moreover, that there are long sweeps of coast north, + south, and west of the Rock, from which torpedoes could be discharged at + any ship that approached. Inquire further where on the Rock an aeroplane + can land. And having ascertained these things, ask yourself what is the + present value of Gibraltar? + </p> + <p> + I will not multiply disagreeable instances of this sort, though it would + be easy enough to do so in the case both of France and Italy as well as of + Great Britain. I give them as illustrations of the way in which everywhere + old securities and old arrangements must be upset by the greater range of + modern things. Let us get on to more general conditions. There is not a + capital city in Europe that twenty years from now will not be liable to a + bombing raid done by hundreds or even thousands of big aeroplanes, upon or + even before a declaration of war, and there is not a line of sea + communication that will not be as promptly interrupted by the hostile + submarine. I point these things out here only to carry home the fact that + the ideas of sovereign isolation and detachment that were perfectly valid + in 1900, the self-sufficient empire, Imperial Zollverein and all that + stuff, and damn the foreigner! are now, because of the enormous changes in + range of action and facility of locomotion that have been going on, almost + as wild—or would be if we were not so fatally accustomed to them—and + quite as dangerous, as the idea of setting up a free and sovereign state + in the Isle of Dogs. All the European empires are becoming vulnerable at + every point. Surely the moral is obvious. The only wise course before the + allied European powers now is to put their national conceit in their + pockets and to combine to lock up their foreign policy, their trade + interests, and all their imperial and international interests into a + League so big as to be able to withstand the most sudden and treacherous + of blows. And surely the only completely safe course for them and mankind—hard + and nearly impossible though it may seem at the present juncture—is + for them to lock up into one unity with a democratized Germany and with + all the other states of the earth into one peace-maintaining League. + </p> + <p> + If the reader will revert again to his atlas he will see very clearly that + a strongly consolidated League of Free Nations, even if it consisted only + of our present allies, would in itself form a combination with so close a + system of communication about the world, and so great an economic + advantage, that in the long run it could oblige Germany and the rest of + the world to come in to its council. Divided the Oceanic Allies are, to + speak plainly, geographical rags and nakedness; united they are a world. + To set about organizing that League now, with its necessary repudiation on + the part of Britain, France, and Italy, of a selfish and, it must be + remembered in the light of these things I have but hinted at here, a <i>now + hopelessly unpracticable imperialism</i>, would, I am convinced, lead + quite rapidly to a great change of heart in Germany and to a satisfactory + peace. But even if I am wrong in that, then all the stronger is the reason + for binding, locking and uniting the allied powers together. It is the + most dangerous of delusions for each and all of them to suppose that + either Britain, France or Italy can ever stand alone again and be secure. + </p> + <p> + And turning now to the other aspect of these consequences of the + development of material science, it is too often assumed that this war is + being as horrible and destructive as war can be. There never was so great + a delusion. This war has only begun to be horrible. No doubt it is much + more horrible and destructive than any former war, but even in comparison + with the full possibilities of known and existing means of destruction it + is still a mild war. Perhaps it will never rise to its full possibilities. + At the present stage there is not a combatant, except perhaps America, + which is not now practising a pinching economy of steel and other + mechanical material. The Germans are running short of first-class flying + men, and if we and our allies continue to press the air attack, and seek + out and train our own vastly greater resources of first quality young + airmen, the Germans may come as near to being “driven out of the air” + as is possible. I am a firmer believer than ever I was in the possibility + of a complete victory over Germany—through and by the air. But the + occasional dropping of a big bomb or so in London is not to be taken as + anything but a minimum display of what air war can do. In a little while + now our alliance should be in a position to commence day and night + continuous attacks upon the Rhine towns. Not hour-long raids such as + London knows, but week-long raids. Then and then only shall we be able to + gauge the really horrible possibilities of the air war. They are in our + hands and not in the hands of the Germans. In addition the Germans are at + a huge disadvantage in their submarine campaign. Their submarine campaign + is only the feeble shadow of what a submarine campaign might be. Turning + again to the atlas the reader can see for himself that the German and + Austrian submarines are obliged to come out across very narrow fronts. A + fence of mines less than three hundred miles long and two hundred feet + deep would, for example, completely bar their exit through the North Sea. + The U-boats run the gauntlet of that long narrow sea and pay a heavy toll + to it. If only our Admiralty would tell the German public what that toll + is now, there would come a time when German seamen would no longer consent + to go down in them. Consider, however, what a submarine campaign would be + for Great Britain if instead of struggling through this bottle-neck it + were conducted from the coast of Norway, where these pests might harbour + in a hundred fiords. Consider too what this weapon may be in twenty years’ + time in the hands of a country in the position of the United States. Great + Britain, if she is not altogether mad, will cease to be an island as soon + as possible after the war, by piercing the Channel Tunnel—how + different our transport problem would be if we had that now!—but + such countries as Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, directly they are + involved in the future in a war against any efficient naval power with an + unimpeded sea access, will be isolated forthwith. I cannot conceive that + any of the great ocean powers will rest content until such a tremendous + possibility of blockade as the submarine has created is securely vested in + the hands of a common league beyond any power of sudden abuse. + </p> + <p> + It must always be remembered that this war is a mechanical war conducted + by men whose discipline renders them uninventive, who know little or + nothing of mechanism, who are for the most part struggling blindly to get + things back to the conditions for which they were trained, to Napoleonic + conditions, with infantry and cavalry and comparatively light guns, the + so-called “war of manoeuvres.” It is like a man engaged in a + desperate duel who keeps on trying to make it a game of cricket. Most of + these soldiers detest every sort of mechanical device; the tanks, for + example, which, used with imagination, might have given the British and + French overwhelming victory on the western front, were subordinated to the + usual cavalry “break through" idea. I am not making any particular + complaint against the British and French generals in saying this. It is + what must happen to any country which entrusts its welfare to soldiers. A + soldier has to be a severely disciplined man, and a severely disciplined + man cannot be a versatile man, and on the whole the British army has been + as receptive to novelties as any. The German generals have done no better; + indeed, they have not done so well as the generals of the Allies in this + respect. But after the war, if the world does not organize rapidly for + peace, then as resources accumulate a little, the mechanical genius will + get to work on the possibilities of these ideas that have merely been + sketched out in this war. We shall get big land ironclads which will smash + towns. We shall get air offensives—let the experienced London reader + think of an air raid going on hour after hour, day after day—that + will really burn out and wreck towns, that will drive people mad by the + thousand. We shall get a very complete cessation of sea transit. Even land + transit may be enormously hampered by aerial attack. I doubt if any sort + of social order will really be able to stand the strain of a fully worked + out modern war. We have still, of course, to feel the full shock effects + even of this war. Most of the combatants are going on, as sometimes men + who have incurred grave wounds will still go on for a time—without + feeling them. The educational, biological, social, economic punishment + that has already been taken by each of the European countries is, I feel, + very much greater than we yet realize. Russia, the heaviest and + worst-trained combatant, has indeed shown the effects and is down and + sick, but in three years’ time all Europe will know far better than + it does now the full price of this war. And the shock effects of the next + war will have much the same relation to the shock effects of this, as the + shock of breaking a finger-nail has to the shock of crushing in a body. In + Russia to-day we have seen, not indeed social revolution, not the + replacement of one social order by another, but disintegration. Let not + national conceit blind us. Germany, France, Italy, Britain are all + slipping about on that same slope down which Russia has slid. Which goes + first, it is hard to guess, or whether we shall all hold out to some kind + of Peace. At present the social discipline of France and Britain seems to + be at least as good as that of Germany, and the <i>morale</i> of the + Rhineland and Bavaria has probably to undergo very severe testing by + systematized and steadily increasing air punishment as this year goes on. + The next war—if a next war comes—will see all Germany, from + end to end, vulnerable to aircraft.... + </p> + <p> + Such are the two sets of considerations that will, I think, ultimately + prevail over every prejudice and every difficulty in the way of the League + of Free Nations. Existing states have become impossible as absolutely + independent sovereignties. The new conditions bring them so close together + and give them such extravagant powers of mutual injury that they must + either sink national pride and dynastic ambitions in subordination to the + common welfare of mankind or else utterly shatter one another. It becomes + more and more plainly a choice between the League of Free Nations and a + famished race of men looting in search of non-existent food amidst the + smouldering ruins of civilization. In the end I believe that the common + sense of mankind will prefer a revision of its ideas of nationality and + imperialism, to the latter alternative. It may take obstinate men a few + more years yet of blood and horror to learn this lesson, but for my own + part I cherish an obstinate belief in the potential reasonableness of + mankind. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0015" id="link2H_4_0015"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + IX. — DEMOCRACY + </h2> + <p> + All the talk, all the aspiration and work that is making now towards this + conception of a world securely at peace, under the direction of a League + of Free Nations, has interwoven with it an idea that is often rather felt + than understood, the idea of Democracy. Not only is justice to prevail + between race and race and nation and nation, but also between man and man; + there is to be a universal respect for human life throughout the earth; + the world, in the words of President Wilson, is to be made “safe for + democracy.” I would like to subject that word to a certain scrutiny + to see whether the things we are apt to think and assume about it + correspond exactly with the feeling of the word. I would like to ask what, + under modern conditions, does democracy mean, and whether we have got it + now anywhere in the world in its fulness and completion. + </p> + <p> + And to begin with I must have a quarrel with the word itself. The + eccentricities of modern education make us dependent for a number of our + primary political terms upon those used by the thinkers of the small Greek + republics of ancient times before those petty states collapsed, through + sheer political ineptitude, before the Macedonians. They thought in terms + of states so small that it was possible to gather all the citizens + together for the purposes of legislation. These states were scarcely more + than what we English might call sovereign urban districts. Fast + communications were made by runners; even the policeman with a bicycle of + the modern urban district was beyond the scope of the Greek imagination. + There were no railways, telegraphs, telephones, books or newspapers, there + was no need for the state to maintain a system of education, and the + affairs of the state were so simple that they could be discussed and + decided by the human voice and open voting in an assembly of all the + citizens. That is what democracy, meant. In Andorra, or perhaps in Canton + Uri, such democracy may still be possible; in any other modern state it + cannot exist. The opposite term to it was oligarchy, in which a small + council of men controlled the affairs of the state. Oligarchy, narrowed + down to one man, became monarchy. If you wished to be polite to an + oligarchy you called it an aristocracy; if you wished to point out that a + monarch was rather by way of being self-appointed, you called him a + Tyrant. An oligarchy with a property qualification was a plutocracy. + </p> + <p> + Now the modern intelligence, being under a sort of magic slavery to the + ancient Greeks, has to adapt all these terms to the problems of states so + vast and complex that they have the same relation to the Greek states that + the anatomy of a man has to the anatomy of a jellyfish. They are not only + greater in extent and denser in population, but they are increasingly + innervated by more and more rapid means of communication and excitement. + In the classical past—except for such special cases as the feeding + of Rome with Egyptian corn—trade was a traffic in luxuries or + slaves, war a small specialized affair of infantry and horsemen in search + of slaves and loot, and empire the exaction of tribute. The modern state + must conduct its enormous businesses through a system of ministries; its + vital interests go all round the earth; nothing that any ancient Greek + would have recognized as democracy is conceivable in a great modern state. + It is absolutely necessary, if we are to get things clear in our minds + about what democracy really means in relation to modern politics, first to + make a quite fresh classification in order to find what items there really + are to consider, and then to inquire which seem to correspond more or less + closely in spirit with our ideas about ancient democracy. + </p> + <p> + Now there are two primary classes of idea about government in the modern + world depending upon our conception of the political capacity of the + common man. We may suppose he is a microcosm, with complete ideas and + wishes about the state and the world, or we may suppose that he isn’t. + We may believe that the common man can govern, or we may believe that he + can’t. We may think further along the first line that he is so wise + and good and right that we only have to get out of his way for him to act + rightly and for the good of all mankind, or we may doubt it. And if we + doubt that we may still believe that, though perhaps “you can fool + all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,” + the common man, expressing himself by a majority vote, still remains the + secure source of human wisdom. But next, while we may deny this universal + distribution of political wisdom, we may, if we are sufficiently under the + sway of modern ideas about collective psychology, believe that it is + necessary to poke up the political indifference and inability of the + common man as much as possible, to thrust political ideas and facts upon + him, to incite him to a watchful and critical attitude towards them, and + above all to secure his assent to the proceedings of the able people who + are managing public affairs. Or finally, we may treat him as a thing to be + ruled and not consulted. Let me at this stage make out a classificatory + diagram of these elementary ideas of government in a modern country. + </p> + <p> + CLASS I. It is supposed that the common man <i>can</i> govern: + </p> + <p> + (1) without further organization (Anarchy); + </p> + <p> + (2) through a majority vote by delegates. + </p> + <p> + CLASS II. It is supposed that the common man <i>cannot</i> govern, and + that government therefore must be through the agency of Able Persons who + may be classified under one of the following sub-heads, either as + </p> + <p> + (1) persons elected by the common man because he believes them to be + persons able to govern—just as he chooses his doctors as persons + able to secure health, and his electrical engineers as persons able to + attend to his tramways, lighting, etc., etc.; + </p> + <p> + (2) persons of a special class, as, for example, persons born and educated + to rule (e.g. <i>Aristocracy</i>), or rich business adventurers <i>(Plutocracy)</i> + who rule without consulting the common man at all. + </p> + <p> + To which two sub-classes we may perhaps add a sort of intermediate stage + between them, namely: + </p> + <p> + (3) persons elected by a special class of voter. + </p> + <p> + Monarchy may be either a special case of Class II.(1), (2) or (3), in + which the persons who rule have narrowed down in number to one person, and + the duration of monarchy may be either for life or a term of years. These + two classes and the five sub-classes cover, I believe, all the elementary + political types in our world. + </p> + <p> + Now in the constitution of a modern state, because of the conflict and + confusion of ideas, all or most of these five sub-classes may usually be + found intertwined. The British constitution, for instance, is a + complicated tangle of arrangements, due to a struggle between the ideas of + Class I.(2), Class II.(3), tending to become Class II.(1) and Class II.(2) + in both its aristocratic and monarchist forms. The American constitution + is largely dominated by Class I.(2), from which it breaks away in the case + of the President to a short-term monarchist aspect of Class II.(1). I will + not elaborate this classification further. I have made it here in order to + render clear first, that what we moderns mean by democracy is not what the + Greeks meant at all, that is to say, direct government by the assembly of + all the citizens, and secondly and more important, that the word “democracy” + is being used very largely in current discussion, so that it is impossible + to say in any particular case whether the intention is Class I.(2) or + Class II.(1), and that we have to make up our minds whether we mean, if I + may coin two phrases, “delegate democracy” or “selective + democracy,” or some definite combination of these two, when we talk + about “democracy,” before we can get on much beyond a generous + gesture of equality and enfranchisement towards our brother man. The word + is being used, in fact, confusingly for these two quite widely different + things. + </p> + <p> + Now, it seems to me that though there has been no very clear discussion of + the issue between those two very opposite conceptions of democracy, + largely because of the want of proper distinctive terms, there has + nevertheless been a wide movement of public opinion away from “delegate + democracy” and towards “selective democracy.” People + have gone on saying “democracy,” while gradually changing its + meaning from the former to the latter. It is notable in Great Britain, for + example, that while there has been no perceptible diminution in our faith + in democracy, there has been a growing criticism of “party” + and “politicians,” and a great weakening in the power and + influence of representatives and representative institutions. There has + been a growing demand for personality and initiative in elected persons. + The press, which was once entirely subordinate politically to + parliamentary politics, adopts an attitude towards parliament and party + leaders nowadays which would have seemed inconceivable insolence in the + days of Lord Palmerston. And there has been a vigorous agitation in + support of electoral methods which are manifestly calculated to + subordinate “delegated” to “selected” men. + </p> + <p> + The movement for electoral reform in Great Britain at the present time is + one of quite fundamental importance in the development of modern + democracy. The case of the reformers is that heretofore modern democracy + has not had a fair opportunity of showing its best possibilities to the + world, because the methods of election have persistently set aside the + better types of public men, or rather of would-be public men, in favour of + mere party hacks. That is a story common to Britain and the American + democracies, but in America it was expressed in rather different terms and + dealt with in a less analytical fashion than it has been in Great Britain. + It was not at first clearly understood that the failure of democracy to + produce good government came through the preference of “delegated” + over “selected” men, the idea of delegation did in fact + dominate the minds of both electoral reformers and electoral conservatives + alike, and the earlier stages of the reform movement in Great Britain were + inspired not so much by the idea of getting a better type of + representative as by the idea of getting a fairer representation of + minorities. It was only slowly that the idea that sensible men do not + usually belong to any political “party” took hold. It is only + now being realized that what sensible men desire in a member of parliament + is honour and capacity rather than a mechanical loyalty to a “platform.” + They do not want to dictate to their representative; they want a man they + can trust as their representative. In the fifties and sixties of the last + century, in which this electoral reform movement began and the method of + Proportional Representation was thought out, it was possible for the + reformers to work untroubled upon the assumption that if a man was not + necessarily born a + </p> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + “... little Liber-al, + or else a little Conservative,” + </pre> + <p> + he must at least be a Liberal-Unionist or a Conservative Free-Trader. But + seeking a fair representation for party minorities, these reformers + produced a system of voting at once simple and incapable of manipulation, + that leads straight, not to the representation of small parties, but to a + type of democratic government by selected best men. + </p> + <p> + Before giving the essential features of that system, it may be well to + state in its simplest form the evils at which the reform aims. An + election, the reformers point out, is not the simple matter it appears to + be at the first blush. Methods of voting can be manipulated in various + ways, and nearly every method has its own liability to falsification. We + may take for illustration the commonest, simplest case—the case that + is the perplexity of every clear-thinking voter under British or American + conditions—the case of a constituency in which every elector has one + vote, and which returns one representative to Parliament. The naive theory + on which people go is that all the possible candidates are put up, that + each voter votes for the one he likes best, and that the best man wins. + The bitter experience is that hardly ever are there more than two + candidates, and still more rarely is either of these the best man + possible. Suppose, for example, the constituency is mainly Conservative. A + little group of pothouse politicians, wire-pullers, busybodies, local + journalists, and small lawyers, working for various monetary interests, + have “captured” the local Conservative organization. They have + time and energy to capture it, because they have no other interest in life + except that. It is their “business,” and honest men are busy + with other duties. For reasons that do not appear these local “workers” + put up an unknown Mr. Goldbug as the official Conservative candidate. He + professes a generally Conservative view of things, but few people are sure + of him and few people trust him. Against him the weaker (and therefore + still more venal) Liberal organization now puts up a Mr. Kentshire + (formerly Wurstberg) to represent the broader thought and finer + generosities of the English mind. A number of Conservative gentlemen, + generally too busy about their honest businesses to attend the party + “smokers” and the party cave, realize suddenly that they want + Goldbug hardly more than they want Wurstberg. They put up their + long-admired, trusted, and able friend Mr. Sanity as an Independent + Conservative. + </p> + <p> + Every one knows the trouble that follows. Mr. Sanity is “going to + split the party vote.” The hesitating voter is told, with + considerable truth, that a vote given for Mr. Sanity is a vote given for + Wurstberg. At any price the constituency does not want Wurstberg. So at + the eleventh hour Mr. Sanity is induced to withdraw, and Mr. Goldbug goes + into Parliament to misrepresent this constituency. And so with most + constituencies, and the result is a legislative body consisting largely of + men of unknown character and obscure aims, whose only credential is the + wearing of a party label. They come into parliament not to forward the + great interests they ostensibly support, but with an eye to the railway + jobbery, corporation business, concessions and financial operations that + necessarily go on in and about the national legislature. That in its + simplest form is the dilemma of democracy. The problem that has confronted + modern democracy since its beginning has not really been the + representation of organized minorities—they are very well able to + look after themselves—but <i>the protection of the unorganized mass + of busily occupied, fairly intelligent men from the tricks of the + specialists who work the party machines</i>. We know Mr. Sanity, we want + Mr. Sanity, but we are too busy to watch the incessant intrigues to oust + him in favour of the obscurely influential people, politically docile, who + are favoured by the organization. We want an organizer-proof method of + voting. It is in answer to this demand, as the outcome of a most careful + examination of the ways in which voting may be protected from the + exploitation of those who <i>work</i> elections, that the method of + Proportional Representation with a single transferable vote has been + evolved. It is organizer-proof. It defies the caucus. If you do not like + Mr. Goldbug you can put up and vote for Mr. Sanity, giving Mr. Goldbug + your second choice, in the most perfect confidence that in any case your + vote cannot help to return Mr. Wurstberg. + </p> + <p> + With Proportional Representation with a single transferable vote (this + specification is necessary, because there are also the inferior imitations + of various election-riggers figuring as proportional representation), it + is <i>impossible to prevent the effective candidature of independent men + of repute beside the official candidates</i>. + </p> + <p> + The method of voting under the Proportional Representation system has been + ignorantly represented as complex. It is really almost ideally simple. You + mark the list of candidates with numbers in the order of your preference. + For example, you believe A to be absolutely the best man for parliament; + you mark him 1. But B you think is the next best man; you mark him 2. That + means that if A gets an enormous amount of support, ever so many more + votes than he requires for his return, your vote will not be wasted. Only + so much of your vote as is needed will go to A; the rest will go to B. Or, + on the other hand, if A has so little support that his chances are + hopeless, you will not have thrown your vote away upon him; it will go to + B. Similarly you may indicate a third, a fourth, and a fifth choice; if + you like you may mark every name on your paper with a number to indicate + the order of your preferences. And that is all the voter has to do. The + reckoning and counting of the votes presents not the slightest difficulty + to any one used to the business of computation. Silly and dishonest men, + appealing to still sillier audiences, have got themselves and their + audiences into humorous muddles over this business, but the principles are + perfectly plain and simple. Let me state them here; they can be fully and + exactly stated, with various ornaments, comments, arguments, sarcastic + remarks, and digressions, in seventy lines of this type. + </p> + <p> + It will be evident that, in any election under this system, any one who + has got a certain proportion of No. 1 votes will be elected. If, for + instance, five people have to be elected and 20,000 voters vote, then any + one who has got 4001 first votes or more <i>must</i> be elected. 4001 + votes is in that case enough to elect a candidate. This sufficient number + of votes is called the <i>quota</i>, and any one who has more than that + number of votes has obviously got more votes than is needful for election. + So, to begin with, the voting papers are classified according to their + first votes, and any candidates who have got more than a quota of first + votes are forthwith declared elected. But most of these elected men would + under the old system waste votes because they would have too many; for + manifestly a candidate who gets more than the quota of votes <i>needs only + a fraction of each of these votes to return him</i>. If, for instance, he + gets double the quota he needs only half each vote. He takes that + fraction, therefore, under this new and better system, and the rest of + each vote is entered on to No. 2 upon that voting paper. And so on. Now + this is an extremely easy job for an accountant or skilled computer, and + it is quite easily checked by any other accountant and skilled computer. A + reader with a bad arithmetical education, ignorant of the very existence + of such a thing as a slide rule, knowing nothing of account keeping, who + thinks of himself working out the resultant fractions with a stumpy pencil + on a bit of greasy paper in a bad light, may easily think of this transfer + of fractions as a dangerous and terrifying process. It is, for a properly + trained man, the easiest, exactest job conceivable. The Cash Register + people will invent machines to do it for you while you wait. What happens, + then, is that every candidate with more than a quota, beginning with the + top candidate, sheds a traction of each vote he has received, down the + list, and the next one sheds his surplus fraction in the same way, and so + on until candidates lower in the list, who are at first below the quota, + fill up to it. When all the surplus votes of the candidates at the head of + the list have been disposed of, then the hopeless candidates at the bottom + of the list are dealt with. The second votes on their voting papers are + treated as whole votes and distributed up the list, and so on. It will be + plain to the quick-minded that, towards the end, there will be a certain + chasing about of little fractions of votes, and a slight modification of + the quota due to voting papers having no second or third preferences + marked upon them, a chasing about that it will be difficult for an + untrained intelligence to follow. <i>But untrained intelligences are not + required to follow it</i>. For the skilled computer these things offer no + difficulty at all. And they are not difficulties of principle but of + manipulation. One might as well refuse to travel in a taxicab until the + driver had explained the magneto as refuse to accept the principle of + Proportional Representation by the single transferable vote until one had + remedied all the deficiencies of one’s arithmetical education. The + fundamental principle of the thing, that a candidate who gets more votes + than he wants is made to hand on a fraction of each vote to the voter’s + second choice, and that a candidate whose chances are hopeless is made to + hand on the whole vote to the voter’s second choice, so that + practically only a small number of votes are ineffective, is within the + compass of the mind of a boy of ten. + </p> + <p> + But simple as this method is, it completely kills the organization and + manipulation of voting. It completely solves the Goldbug-Wurstberg- Sanity + problem. It is knave-proof—short of forging, stealing, or destroying + voting papers. A man of repute, a leaderly man, may defy all the party + organizations in existence and stand beside and be returned over the head + of a worthless man, though the latter be smothered with party labels. That + is the gist of this business. The difference in effect between + Proportional Representation and the old method of voting must ultimately + be to change the moral and intellectual quality of elected persons + profoundly. People are only beginning to realize the huge possibilities of + advance inherent in this change of political method. It means no less than + a revolution from “delegate democracy” to “selective + democracy.” + </p> + <p> + Now, I will not pretend to be anything but a strong partizan in this + matter. When I speak of “democracy” I mean “selective + democracy.” I believe that “delegate democracy” is + already provably a failure in the world, and that the reason why to-day, + after three and a half years of struggle, we are still fighting German + autocracy and fighting with no certainty of absolute victory, is because + the affairs of the three great Atlantic democracies have been largely in + the hands not of selected men but of delegated men, men of intrigue and + the party machine, of dodges rather than initiatives, second-rate men. + When Lord Haldane, defending his party for certain insufficiencies in + their preparation for the eventuality of the great war, pleaded that they + had no “mandate” from the country to do anything of the sort, + he did more than commit political suicide, he bore conclusive witness + against the whole system which had made him what he was. Neither Britain + nor France in this struggle has produced better statesmen nor better + generals than the German autocracy. The British and French Foreign Offices + are old monarchist organizations still. To this day the British and French + politicians haggle and argue with the German ministers upon petty points + and debating society advantages, smart and cunning, while the peoples + perish. The one man who has risen to the greatness of this great occasion, + the man who is, in default of any rival, rapidly becoming the leader of + the world towards peace, is neither a delegate politician nor the choice + of a monarch and his councillors. He is the one authoritative figure in + these transactions whose mind has not been subdued either by long + discipline in the party machine or by court intrigue, who has continued + his education beyond those early twenties when the mind of the “budding + politician” ceases to expand, who has thought, and thought things + out, who is an educated man among dexterous under-educated specialists. By + something very like a belated accident in the framing of the American + constitution, the President of the United States is more in the nature of + a selected man than any other conspicuous figure at the present time. He + is specially elected by a special electoral college after an elaborate + preliminary selection of candidates by the two great party machines. And + be it remembered that Mr. Wilson is not the first great President the + United States have had, he is one of a series of figures who tower over + their European contemporaries. The United States have had many + advantageous circumstances to thank for their present ascendancy in the + world’s affairs: isolation from militarist pressure for a century + and a quarter, a vast virgin continent, plenty of land, freedom from + centralization, freedom from titles and social vulgarities, common + schools, a real democratic spirit in its people, and a great enthusiasm + for universities; but no single advantage has been so great as this happy + accident which has given it a specially selected man as its voice and + figurehead in the world’s affairs. In the average congressman, in + the average senator, as Ostrogorski’s great book so industriously + demonstrated, the United States have no great occasion for pride. Neither + the Senate nor the House of Representatives seem to rise above the level + of the British Houses of Parliament, with a Government unable to control + the rebel forces of Ulster, unable to promote or dismiss generals without + an outcry, weakly amenable to the press, and terrifyingly incapable of + great designs. It is to the United States of America we must look now if + the world is to be made “safe for democracy.” It is to the + method of selection, as distinguished from delegation, that we must look + if democracy is to be saved from itself. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0016" id="link2H_4_0016"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + X. — THE RECENT STRUGGLE FOR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN GREAT + BRITAIN + </h2> + <p> + British political life resists cleansing with all the vigour of a dirty + little boy. It is nothing to your politician that the economic and social + organization of all the world, is strained almost to the pitch of + collapse, and that it is vitally important to mankind that everywhere the + whole will and intelligence of the race should be enlisted in the great + tasks of making a permanent peace and reconstructing the shattered + framework of society. These are remote, unreal considerations to the + politician. What is the world to him? He has scarcely heard of it. He has + been far too busy as a politician. He has been thinking of smart little + tricks in the lobby and brilliant exploits at question time. He has been + thinking of jobs and appointments, of whether Mr. Asquith is likely to + “come back” and how far it is safe to bank upon L. G. His one + supreme purpose is to keep affairs in the hands of his own specialized + set, to keep the old obscure party game going, to rig his little tricks + behind a vast, silly camouflage of sham issues, to keep out able men and + disinterested men, the public mind, and the general intelligence, from any + effective interference with his disastrous manipulations of the common + weal. + </p> + <p> + I do not see how any intelligent and informed man can have followed the + recent debates in the House of Commons upon Proportional Representation + without some gusts of angry contempt. They were the most pitiful and + alarming demonstration of the intellectual and moral quality of British + public life at the present time. + </p> + <p> + From the wire-pullers of the Fabian Society and from the party organizers + of both Liberal and Tory party alike, and from the knowing cards, the + pothouse shepherds, and jobbing lawyers who “work” the + constituencies, comes the chief opposition to this straightening out of + our electoral system so urgently necessary and so long overdue. They have + fought it with a zeal and efficiency that is rarely displayed in the + nation’s interest. From nearly every outstanding man outside that + little inner world of political shams and dodges, who has given any + attention to the question, comes, on the other hand, support for this + reform. Even the great party leaders, Mr. Balfour and Mr. Asquith, were in + its favour. One might safely judge this question by considering who are + the advocates on either side. But the best arguments for Proportional + Representation arise out of its opponents’ speeches, and to these I + will confine my attention now. Consider Lord Harcourt—heir to the + most sacred traditions of the party game—hurling scorn at a project + that would introduce “faddists, mugwumps,” and so on and so on—in + fact independent thinking men—into the legislature. Consider the + value of Lord Curzon’s statement that London “rose in revolt” + against the project. Do you remember that day, dear reader, when the + streets of London boiled with passionate men shouting, “No + Proportional Representation! Down with Proportional Representation”? + You don’t. Nor do I. But what happened was that the guinea-pigs and + solicitors and nobodies, the party hacks who form the bulk of London’s + misrepresentation in the House of Commons, stampeded in terror against a + proposal that threatened to wipe them out and replace them by known and + responsible men. London, alas! does not seem to care how its members are + elected. What Londoner knows anything about his member? Hundreds of + thousands of Londoners do not even know which of the ridiculous + constituencies into which the politicians have dismembered our London they + are in. Only as I was writing this in my flat in St. James’s Court, + Westminster, did it occur to me to inquire who was representing me in the + councils of the nation while I write.... + </p> + <p> + After some slight difficulty I ascertained that my representative is a Mr. + Burdett Coutts, who was, in the romantic eighties, Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett. + And by a convenient accident I find that the other day he moved to reject + the Proportional Representation Amendment made by the House of Lords to + the Representation of the People Bill, so that I am able to look up the + debate in Hansard and study my opinions as he represented them and this + question at one and the same time. And, taking little things first, I am + proud and happy to discover that the member for me was the only + participator in the debate who, in the vulgar and reprehensible phrase, + “threw a dead cat,” or, in polite terms, displayed classical + learning. My member said, “<i>Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes</i>,” + with a rather graceful compliment to the Labour Conference at Nottingham. + “I could not help thinking to myself,” said my member, “that + at that conference there must have been many men of sufficient classical + reading to say to themselves, ‘<i>Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes</i>.’” + In which surmise he was quite right. Except perhaps for “<i>Tempus + fugit,”</i> “<i>verbum sap.</i>,” “<i>Arma + virumque</i>,” and “<i>Quis custodiet</i>,” there is no + better known relic of antiquity. But my member went a little beyond my + ideas when he said: “We are asked to enter upon a method of + legislation which can bear no other description than that of law-making in + the dark,” because I think it can bear quite a lot of other + descriptions. This was, however, the artistic prelude to a large, vague, + gloomy dissertation about nothing very definite, a muddling up of the main + question with the minor issue of a schedule of constituencies involved in + the proposal. + </p> + <p> + The other parts of my member’s speech do not, I confess, fill me + with the easy confidence I would like to feel in my proxy. Let me extract + a few gems of eloquence from the speech of this voice which speaks for me, + and give also the only argument he advanced that needs consideration. + “History repeats itself,” he said, “very often in + curious ways as to facts, but generally with very different results.” + That, honestly, I like. It is a sentence one can read over several times. + But he went on to talk of the entirely different scheme for minority + representation, which was introduced into the Reform Bill of 1867, and + there I am obliged to part company with him. That was a silly scheme for + giving two votes to each voter in a three-member constituency. It has + about as much resemblance to the method of scientific voting under + discussion as a bath-chair has to an aeroplane. “But that measure of + minority representation led to a baneful invention,” my + representative went on to say, “and left behind it a hateful memory + in the Birmingham caucus. I well remember that when I stood for Parliament + thirty-two years ago <i>we had no better platform weapon than repeating + over and over again in a sentence the name of Mr. Schnadhorst,</i> and I + am not sure that it would not serve the same purpose now. Under that + system the work of the caucus was, of course, far simpler than it will be + if this system ever comes into operation. All the caucus had to do under + that measure was to divide the electors into three groups and with three + candidates, A., B., and C., to order one group to vote for A. and B., + another for B. and C., and the third for A. and C., and they carried the + whole of their candidates and kept them for many years. But the + multiplicity of ordinal preferences, second, third, fourth, fifth, up to + tenth, which the single transferable vote system would involve, will + require a more scientific handling in party interests, and neither party + will be able to face an election with any hope of success without the + assistance of the most drastic form of caucus and <i>without its orders + being carried out by the electors</i>.” + </p> + <p> + Now, I swear by Heaven that, lowly creature as I am, a lost vote, a + nothing, voiceless and helpless in public affairs, I am not going to stand + the imputation that that sort of reasoning represents the average mental + quality of Westminster—outside Parliament, that is. Most of my + neighbours in St. James’s Court, for example, have quite large + pieces of head above their eyebrows. Read these above sentences over and + ponder their significance—so far as they have any significance. + Never mind my keen personal humiliation at this display of the mental + calibre of my representative, but consider what the mental calibre of a + House must be that did not break out into loud guffaws at such a passage. + The line of argument is about as lucid as if one reasoned that because one + can break a window with a stone it is no use buying a telescope. And it + remains entirely a matter for speculation whether my member is arguing + that a caucus <i>can</i> rig an election carried on under the Proportional + Representation system or that it cannot. At the first blush it seems to + read as if he intended the former. But be careful! Did he? Let me suggest + that in that last sentence he really expresses the opinion that it cannot. + It can be read either way. Electors under modern conditions are not going + to obey the “orders” of even the “most drastic caucus”—whatever + a “drastic caucus” may be. Why should they? In the Birmingham + instance it was only a section of the majority, voting by wards, in an + election on purely party lines, which “obeyed” in order to + keep out the minority party candidate. I think myself that my member’s + mind waggled. Perhaps his real thoughts shone out through an argument not + intended to betray them. What he did say as much as he said anything was + that under Proportional Representation, elections are going to be very + troublesome and difficult for party candidates. If that was his intention, + then, after all, I forgive him much. I think that and more than that. I + think that they are going to make party candidates who are merely party + candidates impossible. That is exactly what we reformers are after. Then I + shall get a representative more to my taste than Mr. Burdett Coutts. + </p> + <p> + But let me turn now to the views of other people’s representatives. + </p> + <p> + Perhaps the most damning thing ever said against the present system, + damning because of its empty absurdity, was uttered by Sir Thomas + Whittaker. He was making the usual exaggerations of the supposed + difficulties of the method. He said English people didn’t like such + “complications.” They like a “straight fight between two + men.” Think of it! A straight fight! For more than a quarter-century + I have been a voter, usually with votes in two or three constituencies, + and never in all that long political life have I seen a single straight + fight in an election, but only the dismallest sham fights it is possible + to conceive. Thrice only in all that time have I cast a vote for a man + whom I respected. On all other occasions the election that mocked my + citizenship was either an arranged walk-over for one party or the other, + or I had a choice between two unknown persons, mysteriously selected as + candidates by obscure busy people with local interests in the + constituency. Every intelligent person knows that this is the usual + experience of a free and independent voter in England. The “fight” + of an ordinary Parliamentary election in England is about as “straight” + as the business of a thimble rigger. + </p> + <p> + And consider just what these “complications” are of which the + opponents of Proportional Representation chant so loudly. In the sham + election of to-day, which the politicians claim gives them a mandate to + muddle up our affairs, the voter puts a x against the name of the least + detestable of the two candidates that are thrust upon him. Under the + Proportional Representation method there will be a larger constituency, a + larger list of candidates, and a larger number of people to be elected, + and he will put I against the name of the man he most wants to be elected, + 2 against his second choice, and if he likes he may indulge in marking a + third, or even a further choice. He may, if he thinks fit, number off the + whole list of candidates. That is all he will have to do. That is the + stupendous intricacy of the method that flattens out the minds of Lord + Harcourt and Sir Thomas Whittaker. And as for the working of it, if you + must go into that, all that happens is that if your first choice gets more + votes than he needs for his return, he takes only the fraction of your + vote that he requires, and the rest of the vote goes on to your Number 2. + If 2 isn’t in need of all of it, the rest goes on to 3. And so on. + That is the profound mathematical mystery, that is the riddle beyond the + wit of Westminster, which overpowers these fine intelligences and sets + them babbling of “senior wranglers.” Each time there is a + debate on this question in the House, member after member hostile to the + proposal will play the ignorant fool and pretend to be confused himself, + and will try to confuse others, by deliberately clumsy statements of these + most elementary ideas. Surely if there were no other argument for a change + of type in the House, these poor knitted brows, these public perspirations + of the gentry who “cannot understand P.R.,” should suffice. + </p> + <p> + But let us be just; it is not all pretence; the inability of Mr. Austen + Chamberlain to grasp the simple facts before him was undoubtedly genuine. + He followed Mr. Burdett Coutts, in support of Mr. Burdett Coutts, with the + most Christian disregard of the nasty things Mr. Burdett Coutts had seemed + to be saying about the Birmingham caucus from which he sprang. He had a + childish story to tell of how voters would not give their first votes to + their real preferences, because they would assume he “would get in + in any case”—God knows why. Of course on the assumption that + the voter behaves like an idiot, anything is possible. And never + apparently having heard of fractions, this great Birmingham leader was + unable to understand that a voter who puts 1 against a candidate’s + name votes for that candidate anyhow. He could not imagine any feeling on + the part of the voter that No. 1 was his man. A vote is a vote to this + simple rather than lucid mind, a thing one and indivisible. Read this— + </p> + <p> + “Birmingham,” he said, referring to a Schedule under + consideration, “is to be cut into three constituencies of four + members each. I am to have a constituency of 100,000 electors, I suppose. + How many thousand inhabitants I do not know. <i>Every effort will be made + to prevent any of those electors knowing—in fact, it would be + impossible for any of them to know—whether they voted for me or not, + or at any rate whether they effectively voted for me or not, or whether + the vote which they wished to give to me was really diverted to somebody + else</i>.” + </p> + <p> + Only in a house of habitually inattentive men could any one talk such + nonsense without reproof, but I look in vain through Hansard’s + record of this debate for a single contemptuous reference to Mr. + Chamberlain’s obtuseness. And the rest of his speech was a + lamentable account of the time and trouble he would have to spend upon his + constituents if the new method came in. He was the perfect figure of the + parochially important person in a state of defensive excitement. No doubt + his speech appealed to many in the House. + </p> + <p> + Of course Lord Harcourt was quite right in saying that the character of + the average House of Commons member will be changed by Proportional + Representation. It will. It will make the election of obscure and unknown + men, of carpet-bag candidates who work a constituency as a hawker works a + village, of local pomposities and village-pump “leaders” + almost impossible. It will replace such candidates by better known and + more widely known men. It will make the House of Commons so much the more + a real gathering of the nation, so much the more a house of representative + men. (Lord Harcourt’s “faddists and mugwumps.”) And it + is perfectly true as Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (also an opponent) declares, + that Proportional Representation means constituencies so big that it will + be impossible for a poor man to cultivate and work them. That is + unquestionable. But, mark another point, it will also make it useless, as + Mr. Chamberlain has testified, for rich men to cultivate and work them. + All this cultivating and working, all this going about and making things + right with this little jobber here, that contractor there, all the + squaring of small political clubs and organizations, all the subscription + blackmail and charity bribery, that now makes a Parliamentary candidature + so utterly rotten an influence upon public life, will be killed dead by + Proportional Representation. You cannot job men into Parliament by + Proportional Representation. Proportional Representation lets in the + outsider. It lets in the common, unassigned voter who isn’t in the + local clique. That is the clue to nearly all this opposition of the + politicians. It makes democracy possible for the first time in modern + history. And that poor man of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald’s imagination, + instead of cadging about a constituency in order to start politician, will + have to make good in some more useful way—as a leader of the workers + in their practical affairs, for example—before people will hear of + him and begin to believe in him. + </p> + <p> + The opposition to Proportional Representation of Mr. Sidney Webb and his + little circle is a trifle more “scientific” in tone than these + naive objections of the common run of antagonist, but underlying it is the + same passionate desire to keep politics a close game for the politician + and to bar out the politically unspecialized man. There is more conceit + and less jobbery behind the criticisms of this type of mind. It is an + opposition based on the idea that the common man is a fool who does not + know what is good for him. So he has to be stampeded. Politics, according + to this school, is a sort of cattle-driving. + </p> + <p> + The Webbites do not deny the broad facts of the case. Our present + electoral system, with our big modern constituencies of thousands of + voters, leads to huge turnovers of political power with a relatively small + shifting of public opinion. It makes a mock of public opinion by + caricature, and Parliament becomes the distorting mirror of the nation. + Under some loud false issue a few score of thousands of votes turn over, + and in goes this party or that with a big sham majority. This the Webbites + admit. But they applaud it. It gives us, they say, “a strong + Government.” Public opinion, the intelligent man outside the House, + is ruled out of the game. He has no power of intervention at all. The + artful little Fabian politicians rub their hands and say, “<i>Now</i> + we can get to work with the wires! No one can stop us.” And when the + public complains of the results, there is always the repartee, “<i>You</i> + elected them.” But the Fabian psychology is the psychology of a very + small group of pedants who believe that fair ends may be reached by foul + means. It is much easier and more natural to serve foul ends by foul + means. In practice it is not tricky benevolence but tricky bargaining + among the interests that will secure control of the political wires. That + is a bad enough state of affairs in ordinary times, but in times of tragic + necessity like the present men will not be mocked in this way. Life is + going to be very intense in the years ahead of us. If we go right on to + another caricature Parliament, with perhaps half a hundred leading men in + it and the rest hacks and nobodies, the baffled and discontented outsiders + in the streets may presently be driven to rioting and the throwing of + bombs. Unless, indeed, the insurrection of the outsiders takes a still + graver form, and the Press, which has ceased entirely to be a Party Press + in Great Britain, helps some adventurous Prime Minister to flout and set + aside the lower House altogether. There is neither much moral nor much + physical force behind the House of Commons at the present time. + </p> + <p> + The argument of the Fabian opponents to Proportional Representation is + frankly that the strongest Government is got in a House of half a hundred + or fewer leading men, with the rest of the Parliament driven sheep. But + the whole mischief of the present system is that the obscure members of + Parliament are not sheep; they are a crowd of little-minded, second-rate + men just as greedy and eager and self-seeking as any of us. They vote + straight indeed on all the main party questions, they obey their Whips + like sheep then; but there is a great bulk of business in Parliament + outside the main party questions, and obedience is not without its price. + These are matters vitally affecting our railways and ships and + communications generally, the food and health of the people, armaments, + every sort of employment, the appointment of public servants, the everyday + texture of all our lives. Then the nobody becomes somebody, the party hack + gets busy, the rat is in the granary.... + </p> + <p> + In these recent debates in the House of Commons one can see every stock + trick of the wire-puller in operation. Particularly we have the old dodge + of the man who is “in theory quite in sympathy with Proportional + Representation, but ...” It is, he declares regretfully, too late. + It will cause delay. Difficult to make arrangements. Later on perhaps. And + so on. It is never too late for a vital issue. Upon the speedy adoption of + Proportional Representation depends, as Mr. Balfour made plain in an + admirable speech, whether the great occasions of the peace and after the + peace are to be handled by a grand council of all that is best and most + leaderlike in the nation, or whether they are to be left to a few leaders, + apparently leading, but really profoundly swayed by the obscure crowd of + politicians and jobbers behind them. Are the politicians to hamper and + stifle us in this supreme crisis of our national destinies or are we + British peoples to have a real control of our own affairs in this + momentous time? Are men of light and purpose to have a voice in public + affairs or not? Proportional Representation is supremely a test question. + It is a question that no adverse decision in the House of Commons can + stifle. There are too many people now who grasp its importance and + significance. Every one who sets a proper value upon purity in public life + and the vitality of democratic institutions will, I am convinced, vote and + continue to vote across every other question against the antiquated, foul, + and fraudulent electoral methods that have hitherto robbed democracy of + three-quarters of its efficiency. + </p> + <p> + <br /><br /> + </p> + <hr /> + <p> + <a name="link2H_4_0017" id="link2H_4_0017"> </a> + </p> + <div style="height: 4em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + <h2> + XI. — THE STUDY AND PROPAGANDA OF DEMOCRACY + </h2> + <p> + In the preceding chapter I have dealt with the discussion of Proportional + Representation in the British House of Commons in order to illustrate the + intellectual squalor amidst which public affairs have to be handled at the + present time, even in a country professedly “democratic.” I + have taken this one discussion as a sample to illustrate the present + imperfection of our democratic instrument. All over the world, in every + country, great multitudes of intelligent and serious people are now + inspired by the idea of a new order of things in the world, of a + world-wide establishment of peace and mutual aid between nation and nation + and man and man. But, chiefly because of the elementary crudity of + existing electoral methods, hardly anywhere at present, except at + Washington, do these great ideas and this world-wide will find expression. + Amidst the other politicians and statesmen of the world President Wilson + towers up with an effect almost divine. But it is no ingratitude to him to + say that he is not nearly so exceptional a being among educated men as he + is among the official leaders of mankind. Everywhere now one may find + something of the Wilson purpose and intelligence, but nearly everywhere it + is silenced or muffled or made ineffective by the political advantage of + privileged or of violent and adventurous inferior men. He is “one of + us,” but it is his good fortune to have got his head out of the sack + that is about the heads of most of us. In the official world, in the world + of rulers and representatives and “statesmen,” he almost + alone, speaks for the modern intelligence. + </p> + <p> + This general stifling of the better intelligence of the world and its + possible release to expression and power, seems to me to be the + fundamental issue underlying all the present troubles of mankind. We + cannot get on while everywhere fools and vulgarians hold the levers that + can kill, imprison, silence and starve men. We cannot get on with false + government and we cannot get on with mob government; we must have right + government. The intellectual people of the world have a duty of + co-operation they have too long neglected. The modernization of political + institutions, the study of these institutions until we have worked out and + achieved the very best and most efficient methods whereby the whole + community of mankind may work together under the direction of its chosen + intelligences, is the common duty of every one who has a brain for the + service. And before everything else we have to realize this crudity and + imperfection in what we call “democracy” at the present time. + Democracy is still chiefly an aspiration, it is a spirit, it is an idea; + for the most part its methods are still to seek. And still more is this + “League of Free Nations” as yet but an aspiration. Let us not + underrate the task before us. Only the disinterested devotion of hundreds + of thousands of active brains in school, in pulpit, in book and press and + assembly can ever bring these redeeming conceptions down to the solid + earth to rule. + </p> + <p> + All round the world there is this same obscuration of the real + intelligence of men. In Germany, human good will and every fine mind are + subordinated to political forms that have for a mouthpiece a Chancellor + with his brains manifestly addled by the theories of <i>Welt-Politik</i> + and the Bismarckian tradition, and for a figurehead a mad Kaiser. + Nevertheless there comes even from Germany muffled cries for a new age. A + grinning figure like a bloodstained Punch is all that speaks for the best + brains in Bulgaria. Yes. We Western allies know all that by heart; but, + after all, the immediate question for each one of us is, “<i>What + speaks for me?</i>” So far as official political forms go I myself + am as ineffective as any right-thinking German or Bulgarian could possibly + be. I am more ineffective than a Galician Pole or a Bohemian who votes for + his nationalist representative. Politically I am a negligible item in the + constituency of this Mr. Burdett Coutts into whose brain we have been + peeping. Politically I am less than a waistcoat button on that quaint + figure. And that is all I am—except that I revolt. I have written of + it so far as if it were just a joke. But indeed bad and foolish political + institutions cannot be a joke. Sooner or later they prove themselves to be + tragedy. This war is that. It is yesterday’s lazy, tolerant, “sense + of humour” wading out now into the lakes of blood it refused to + foresee. + </p> + <p> + It is absurd to suppose that anywhere to-day the nationalisms, the + suspicions and hatreds, the cants and policies, and dead phrases that sway + men represent the current intelligence of mankind. They are merely the + evidences of its disorganization. Even now we <i>know</i> we could do far + better. Give mankind but a generation or so of peace and right education + and this world could mock at the poor imaginations that conceived a + millennium. But we have to get intelligences together, we have to canalize + thought before it can work and produce its due effects. To that end, I + suppose, there has been a vast amount of mental activity among us + political “negligibles.” For my own part I have thought of the + idea of God as the banner of human unity and justice, and I have made some + tentatives in that direction, but men, I perceive, have argued themselves + mean and petty about religion. At the word “God” passions + bristle. The word “God” does not unite men, it angers them. + But I doubt if God cares greatly whether we call Him God or no. His + service is the service of man. This double idea of the League of Free + Nations, linked with the idea of democracy as universal justice, is free + from the jealousy of the theologians and great enough for men to unite + upon everywhere. I know how warily one must reckon with the spite of the + priest, but surely these ideas may call upon the teachers of all the great + world religions for their support. The world is full now of confused + propaganda, propaganda of national ideas, of traditions of hate, of + sentimental and degrading loyalties, of every sort of error that divides + and tortures and slays mankind. All human institutions are made of + propaganda, are sustained by propaganda and perish when it ceases; they + must be continually explained and re-explained to the young and the + negligent. And for this new world of democracy and the League of Free + Nations to which all reasonable men are looking, there must needs be the + greatest of all propagandas. For that cause every one must become a + teacher and a missionary. “Persuade to it and make the idea of it + and the necessity for it plain,” that is the duty of every school + teacher, every tutor, every religious teacher, every writer, every + lecturer, every parent, every trusted friend throughout the world. For it, + too, every one must become a student, must go on with the task of making + vague intentions into definite intentions, of analyzing and destroying + obstacles, of mastering the ten thousand difficulties of detail.... + </p> + <p> + I am a man who looks now towards the end of life; fifty-one years have I + scratched off from my calendar, another slips by, and I cannot tell how + many more of the sparse remainder of possible years are really mine. I + live in days of hardship and privation, when it seems more natural to feel + ill than well; without holidays or rest or peace; friends and the sons of + my friends have been killed; death seems to be feeling always now for + those I most love; the newspapers that come in to my house tell mostly of + blood and disaster, of drownings and slaughterings, of cruelties and base + intrigues. Yet never have I been so sure that there is a divinity in man + and that a great order of human life, a reign of justice and world-wide + happiness, of plenty, power, hope, and gigantic creative effort, lies + close at hand. Even now we have the science and the ability available for + a universal welfare, though it is scattered about the world like a handful + of money dropped by a child; even now there exists all the knowledge that + is needed to make mankind universally free and human life sweet and noble. + We need but the faith for it, and it is at hand; we need but the courage + to lay our hands upon it and in a little space of years it can be ours. + </p> + <h3> + THE END. + </h3> +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of In The Fourth Year, by H.G. Wells + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK IN THE FOURTH YEAR *** + +***** This file should be named 10291-h.htm or 10291-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/2/9/10291/ + + +Etext produced by Jonathan Ingram, Brett Koonce +and PG Distributed Proofreaders + +HTML file produced by David Widger + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS," WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's +eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, +compressed (zipped), HTML and others. + +Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over +the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. +VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving +new filenames and etext numbers. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000, +are filed in directories based on their release date. If you want to +download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular +search system you may utilize the following addresses and just +download by the etext year. + + http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext06 + + (Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, + 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90) + +EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are +filed in a different way. The year of a release date is no longer part +of the directory path. The path is based on the etext number (which is +identical to the filename). The path to the file is made up of single +digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename. For +example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at: + + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/0/2/3/10234 + +or filename 24689 would be found at: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/4/6/8/24689 + +An alternative method of locating eBooks: + https://www.gutenberg.org/GUTINDEX.ALL + + + + + +</pre> + <div style="height: 6em;"> + <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> + </div> + </body> +</html> |