P AGE NOTES OF CURRENT CANT . FOREIGN AFFAIRS. By S. Verdad . MILITARYNOTES. By Romney . FREEDOM T H E GuILD.--11. By G. D. H. Cole . IN THECHARLATANS. By Leighton J. Warnock . TURKISH INDEPENDENCE. MarmadukePickthall By DEVILS. By M. B. Oxon . BRITISH MUSIC v. GERMAN MusIc.--11. By Joseph Holbrooke . HEINEAND MARK TWAIN.Ky Dr. G. T. Wrench DRAMA. By John Francis Hope . READERS AND W R I T E R S . By R. H. C. . THE WEEK . 25 28 29 31 32 34 27 35 36 37 40 41 . IMPRESSIONS PARIS. By Alice Morning . OF . 42 VIEWSAND REVIEWS THE OTHER Focus. : By 44 A. E. R. PASTICHE. By Stevenson Ivor Parker, Brown, P. F., P. S., Theodore Maynard . . 45 LETTERS THE EDITORfrom C. H. Norman, S. TO Verdad, J. M., A. E. R., Marmaduke Pickthall, Douglas Fox Pitt, Rogator, P. Ouspenski,John H. Bonner,BeatriceKidd,John Duncan, W . B., Beatrice Harraden, Alfred Sayers, Arthur Kitson, Leonard Inkster, M. Bridges Adams, Dr. Oscar Levy, W m . Loftus Hare, H . L.,CharlesBrookfarmer,ArthurE. Hight . . 46 PAGE . NOTES OF THE WEEK. THE publication of this number of THENEW AGE coincides almost to a day with the reassembling of Parliament; and we will take advantage of this circumstance to address a grave warning to the Government. Of the many hateful and loathsome issues raised by the war, we fear the most hateful and loathsome of all is now being raised so skilfully and plausibly that even the few Members of Parliament who are genuinely anxious to do their duty by their country be may deceived by the .specious arguments advanced. Under the plea of “national emergency”“military or necessity” (with which latter the people of this countryhavecome to associate theuncouthmodernBismarck) anattack on one of our few remainingnationaltraditionsisbeing prepared; and from this attack, unless the Government can be forced to take cognisance of realities, a national calamity is only too likely to result.Ourreaders will have divined that we refer to the campaign in favour of conscription which has been proceeding in the Press for the last eight or nine clays. It is true that many papers, such as the “Morning Post,” have always been harping on conscription ; it is true that the “Express” and other daily journals demanded conscription almost as soon a s war broke out.Butlast week we witnessed a deter’mined effort on the part of nearly every important paper in London to force some measure of conscription on the House of Commons. This is a new feature of the war as it affects this country, and one that no conceivable circumstances can justify. by the relativesandfriends of thegoverning classes outside of it; and that very fact explains the intensity and danger of the campaign. The proprietors of papers who belong to, or seck to enter, the governing classes are naturallyopentopressure. In manycases,indeed, pressure is not necessary ; for i n essential respects the interests of newspaper employers correspond to the interests of all other employers. This sudden and parallel outburst in favour of conscription is not undertaken merelybecause the nation is thought to be indanger. There are other motives-motivesconcealed,certainly, from the general public ; but manifest enough to economists and political scientists who have observed with disquietude how closely the governing classes of England have followed the example of the governing classes of Prussia in devising measures for the complete control of the proletariat. Itwas more a thanmere coincidence that the Report on the Poor Law quickly followed the Old Age Pensions Act, and was followed in its turn by an experiment (on the miners) of a minimum wage, and by National Insurance. It was not for nothingthat a demand for conscriptionshould follow National Insurance. x* * * * * We should not, o f course, think of turningtothe daily Press for anything but the most distorted reflection of themind o f the country. The art of suggesting the false and suppressing the true is carried to its highest degree o perfection in the newspapers of England ; and f especially in the newspapers of London. But, while the -papers only pretend to interpret the spirit of the people, they do setforth in grimearnestthe beliefs, desires and prejudices of whatwemay,forthe sake of convenience, call the governing classes. Since, pracin tice, the power of ruling this country has been turned to the W a r Office, the term is perhaps hardly appropriate. The War Office, nevertheless, is administered over “There are five particulars,” Aristotle, says “in which, under fair pretences, the rich craftily endeavour to undermine the rights of the people : these are their publicassemblies,their offices of state, their courts of justice, their military power, and their gymnastic exercises. . . Thosewhoarepoor,although they partake not of the offices of state,are willing to live quietly, provided that noonedisturbsthem intheirproperty. But this is not an easy matter; for itmaynotalways happen that those who are at the head of public affairs are of a humane behaviour.” As all those who are familiar the with impositions practised the on working classes are perfectly well aware, our rich employers have already “craftily undermined” the rights of the people in their public assemblies,their offices of state,their courts of justice, and their “gymnastic exercises,” i.e., the publicschoolsanduniversities. Forthe first time in industrial history the rich people of this country have an opportunity of undermining the rights of the people still further by exercising Aristotle their what calls military power. By theexpression is meant,not only the power of inflicting damage by the use of arms in the 26 field, but also the power which the mere control of arms and of enforcingdiscipline confers on its possessor. *** The infinite difference between this country and Germany is that power in England-political, military, and economic power-is entirely at the disposal,now,of themanufacturing andtradingclasses ; whilepower in Germany is at the disposal of an aristocratic governing class in which neithertradesmennortheirideals are tolerated. ThegoverningclassesinGermanyuse their power for the achievement, as far as possible of a national ideal. For the last twenty years, if we may judge representative pamphlets, from books, and speeches, the Germans have believed it to be their duty to force the rest o the world to adopt German civilisaf tion, Germanphilosophy,even theGermanlanguage. This belief has been upheld-we had almost said nobly upheld-by therulingclassesinGermany;and, however distorted we may think it we must admit that such an ideal as this is infinitely superior to the ideal of the ruling classes in England. The ideal of the ruling classes in England is to exploit their workmen in such a way astomakethelargest possibleprofits out of them-no nonsense about civilisation and culture there ! Theadvantage of theEnglish idealisthatit yields immediatematerial results to the employers ; the advantage of the German ideal is that it inspires men to fight. “Eye-Witness,” in one of his latest reports from the front, has testified to the bravery of the German soldiers, and has told us how, time after time, they have tried to storm almost impregnable positions, singing their national songs. Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett, also in a recent message, says that the Germans at the Yser foughtmorelikedervishesthanEuropeans. W e will emphasise point this no furtherthanbysayingthat these accounts are very different from some of the obvious absurdities which reached London newspapers fromthefrontearlier in thewar. shillings a week, with a shilling a week thrown in for each child. To write down these figures is to condemn the Government for tolerating them longer than the first week of the war. Proposals have been made that the a pound a widows of men killed inactionshallhave week as minimumpension ; andproportionate recompense has beensuggestedforsoldierswhoare badly wounded. OnthispointtheGovernment, with extraordinary unanimity, has been silent. For the last three but months money has not merely been spent, squandered, inefforts totrainthenewarmyandto make other preparations for carrying on the campaign. fie The authoritiesat t h e W a r Ofc probably know as well a s we do that it is the neglect of the soldiers’ dependents We are which prevents recruits from coming forward. told that a statementmay be expectedshortlyafter Parliament opens. But there was no reason why a suitable statement should have been delayed for nearly four months ; and we must seek elsewhere than in the War Office for an explanation of its .apparent stupidity and carelessness. * * * * * * Unfortunately for our rulers, the working classes of this country began to realise several years ago that they were being exploited, and the time has now come when they resent further exploitation. They feel, as we have often pointed out in these prophetic columns, that they have no interest in their country ; that their true value is not appreciated ; that they have no opportunities for developingtheirlatentpowers of craftsmanship.The attempted imposition o theNationalInsurance f Actfor thesuccess of that detestablemeasureis stilluncertain, we are glad to say-has almost deprived them of theirsuperbqualities of initiative, skill, and conscientiousness. On these grounds alone it would be possible to explain a certainapathy in the men who might come forward as recruits ; but this explanation, psychologically satisfactory as it would be, is notthe true one. The lack of recruitsisdue toothercauses chiefly ; and if the Government are not acquainted with those causes as well a s we are we cannot congratulate them on their paid agents throughout the country, oron their ability to gauge the character of the people whom they are supposed to represent. W e repeatour contention-for itcanneverbe repeated too often-that the authorities object to a minimum pension because it might and probably would lead A minimumwage, after the war to a minimumwage. far removed though it is from our ideas of economic revolution, is regarded by the average employer in the plague. T o accustom proletariat the as a light of a whole to better conditions during the war than during f peace would mean the sweeping away o the very basis of our industrial system ; and, war or no war, danger to the Empire or no danger, theemployers will never agree to this most reasonable of proposals. The Government, beingundertheinfluence of the capitalists,doesnot seem to beable to act on itsown initiative in this matter. The rich, in fact, having well begun their “crafty undermining” of the rights of the people, will see to it that their labours shall not be proved to have been in vain. *** * * * Thewarhas now been in progressformorethan And yeteven the servile threemonths ; nearerfour. “patriotic” newspapers have had to complain, for very shame, that certain financial matters connected with the organisation of the new army have not been satiso the men atthe f factorily settled. dependents The front, or in camp, as we have emphasised time and are again, not properly The being treated. promises the Government held out to them at the beginning of thewarhave not been kept ; and, in all conscience, surely those promises were meagre enough ! A man gives up a situation at which he may be earning twenty-five orthirtyshillings a week. Inhisabsence in camp hiswifeandfamilyare compelled toreduce their standard of living by a t least a half, and more often widow receives five two-thirds. If he is ,killed, his But the rights of the people have been undermined in yet other ways than by the partial carrying into effect of the Insurance Act. As the capitalists control all the means of production,distribution,andexchange,they can, by acting in conjunction, give work or take it away almost at pleasure. Their power in this respect has not yet reached its utmost limits ; but that is merely because all the psychological and ‘physical difficulties in the way of so ambitions a scheme have not been overcome. The campaignhas been planned, thestrategyandtactics havebeenthought out; but in thestruggle between Capital Labour, and nevertheless, Labour, while not winning, still manages to give Capital so much trouble that economicvictories areoftendearlybought.The importance attached by even the lowest workman to his personal freedom ; his respect for tradition; his power o organisation, however f limited it may be; his spontaneous willingness to sacrifice himself for his fellows ; these are psychological factors which Capital, influenced as it is only by materialconditions,cannot understand, consequently and cannot conquer. There a good chance of subduing workwould,however,be men influenced by these factors if even a mild form of conscription ‘could be introduced. English employers have never forgotten the French railway strike and the summoning the of men to duties their under what amountedtomartial law. W h a t a fine thingit would be forouremployers to be able,undersimilarlegal authority, to drive their workers down the mine or into the factory ! How soon would strikes come to an end, if indeed they were ever declared a t all ! *** Various contributors to THE NEW AGE have set forth the technical arguments against conscription ; and theyalone would beenough to condemntheproposal which the newspapers, without knowing anything of the 27 subject, are now putting forward SO glibly. We prefer in this place to refer only to the moral and psychological objections toit ; and we hold that, judged by the national standards which suchobjectionspresuppose, conscription cannotbeseriouslyadvocated by any responsible Minister. From an early stage in the history of England two traits, at first sight irreconcilable, have always characterised the people. They were, in the first place, warlike; never they shirked battle, they and carried their conquests to the ends o the earth ; but, in f the second place, theynevertoleratedlargestanding armies. Even Cromwell’s Ironsides, despite services which the nation was eager to acknowledge, thought it advisable to disband when their work was over. A long experience of fickle rulers had made the English people suspicious of standing armies; but, when danger threatened, defenderswereneverwanting.Thesetwo factors constitutetwo o our strongest national tradif tions. The difference between Old the the and New England is that while Henry’s yeomen at Agincourt had a direct stake in the country for whose interests they were fighting, and while evenNelson’ssailors had an indirect share in the common village lands, the modern English workman who is the twentieth century symbol of such people wanders over the surface of his country as if he were some kind of industrial Ishmael. In a very “attached” to anything.He definite sense he is not has been dispossessed;his common landshave been filched from him ; he has been driven into the slums of ‘cities; and even Bismarck himself admitted that no man could love bricks and mortar or seek his inspiration in them. Current Cant., “Mr. Arnold Bennett’s Proposed Terms of Peace.”— “The Nation.” “Readers of ‘The New Statesman’ will appreciate ‘The Globe’ because it is not stodgy, not pedantic, but virile, outspokenandindependent.”--Advert. i n “ New Statesman.” “This is a war of Christ against the BRIDGES. devil.”-ROBERT “Angels i n white. A book for the present time of distress.”-S. W. PARTRIDGE Co. AND “For growing Children. Dr. Tibble’s Vi-Cocoa. No other cocoa will do.”-“British Weekly.’’ “Hear us, we beseech Thee, and for our Saviour JesusChrist’ssake. Weekly.” accept and bless us, Amen.”-“ British “It is not the dark side but the bright side of war that we honour in the temples of the Christian God.”-GEORGE R. SIMS. “The ‘Evening News’ has again HAROLD OWEN. “IS your hair bankrupt touched the spot.”Express.” ?”--“Daily “Soldiers like Tommy Atkins do make peace.”-MRS. HENRY FAWCETT. “Not for many a day has the spy been so much in evidence. . . In the New Testament we read o ‘false f brethren’ . . . with these the apostle Paul had no patience. . . .”-“The Christian.” * * * . In spite of the defenceless condition of the English workman, however,it is not safe to meddlewithhim too much. Englishmen-and collectively they are a n entity-have gonethroughallthe political processes which Bluntschli has described with such lucidity in his great work on politics. They were first a people, then they became a nation,andthey finally formedthemselves into a State ; a State with fixed and unchanging traditions. Their State concentrated is in a Government; and even in time of war no part of that Government must commit the moral as well a s political crime of becoming greaterthanthe whole. Government is primarily a civil and not a military matter ; and the War Office, great and important department as it is at the present time, is yet but one department of the Government which is the State in esse. If Mr. Asquith knows his countrymen, he must realise that they expect him to maintain his authority over the Cabinet ; and the first condition of the maintenance of his authority is that our national traditions shall be not interfered with. Our Prime Minister must not look to Prussia once more for a solution of difficulties at home. If recruits are lacking, thecauses are known. Pay the men’s dependents and the men will come. Start conscription, andwhat will the result b e ? W e shall have a bungled army and an unnatural, enslaved people. If conscriptionshould everbe imposed on us by a conquering army of Prussians, we shall have at least the satisfaction of knowing that it will becarriedout efficiently. Our own W a r Office authorities are too national-perhaps in spite of themselves-to apply even a simplemeasure of conscription. *** “An admirable Spirit has of industry.”-I,. G.CHIOZZAbeen shownby the captains MONEY, M.P. Problems “What do. to Weekly.” o f conduct.”-“British working-classlag- “The middle-class wastrel andthe gard. . . .”--“Daily Express.” “Dear ‘ Daily Express,’ may I entreat you to use your great influence to make Military Service compulsory. . .” -SIR FRANCIS LEY. “The inspiring strains of “Land of Hopeand Glory,’ the grand old hymn ‘ Onward, Christian Soldiers.’ . . -SELFRIDGE-CALLISTHENES. . “It is because we are Christians that we have gone to War. It is Christ Himself who has bidden us draw the sword. . .”-W. ROBERTSON NICOLL. . “You can be sure of being nourished if you take Bovril. In Peace and War in Bovril has always been atthe Front.”-“Times.” “Business as usual, thanks “BritishWeekly.” “We live just --“Guardian.” “Five tons phic.” to Beecham’s Pills.”- now in an atmosphere of self-sacrifice:” of Coal for ten shillings.”-“Daily Gra- The members of the Government must bear in mind a plain definition of injustice ; forthere could beno greater injustice done to the English people than to attempt to impose conscriptiononthem. “That legislation is iniquitous,” said Coleridge, “which sets law in conflict with the commonandunsophisticatedfeelings of our own nature.” A poetisrighteven when he expresses himself in prose. If the present Cabinet cannot interpret to themselves common the and unsophisticated feelings of the English people, they must be prepared for criticism from us that will not be dealt out with too gentle a hand. “A Ton of Coal for half a crown.”--“Times.” “Everybody reads press.” the ‘Daily Express.’ ”--“Daily Ex- “I have come to the conclusion that God counts for a good deal in the life o New York.”—GEORGE BIRf A. MINGHAM. “All war is thinking ahead.”--ARNOLD WHITE. “Hymns for use intime of War. ‘Let God Arise,’ ‘Praise .the Lord,’ ‘God the all-terrible,’ ‘The Lord of Hosts our King shall be.”-NOVELLOAND Co. 28 Foreign Affairs. By THERE S. Verdad. are three letters in last week’s issue which I feel bound to notice. I had already seen “Fairplay’s” letter in the “Saturday Review” of October 17 ; and, although I agree that the remarks of the editor of the “Saturday” were not in the best of taste, I cannot imagine that t h i s correspondent has verified his.facts. Inthefirst place, there is no doubt that the Germans, in the early part of their campaign, were responsible for a great deal of purely wantondestruction,and that in many cases they simply ridiculed clauses of the Geneva and Hague Conventions to which they hadset official signatures. The indiscriminate scatteringo mines in neutral waters, f for example, is enough to damn the nation for two or three generations to come. In the second place, the destructioncarried out earlyin the campaign was the direct.consequence of orders issued by the generals in command, and is quite in accordance with modern German principles of waging war. It is a favourite text of military writers in Germany that the more dreadful and appalling is warmade the for civil population, the soonerit will be ended ; for the civil population, it is presumed, will be unable to tolerate the treatment meted out to them and will bring all possible influence to bear on the authorities to end the hostilities. *** think of their rifle fire-the GermanGovernment serion the ously stated that the French had mounted guns Cathedral roof. accusation This was easily disproved by the fact that light guns would have been useless on the roof, and that heavy guns could not have been placed there. It was only quiterecently that we hadthelast excuse about the tower being used as a “post of obser*** vation.” Undoubtedly the earlier reports of atrocities were esaggerated; such reports always But are. enough remains to show that the ,Germans did behave badly ; that theydidnot wagewarlikegentlemen.Theydropped bombs from aircraft on undefended towns, for instance : a n action which is expresslyforbiddenby the rules of international law. I saw statement the by American my view correspondentsreferred to by “Fairplay.” In ; and I know from the it was anything but convincing evidence of my own eyes that at least someofitwas may be set the statement cabled by wrong.Againstit “New York Mr. Richard Harding Davis to the Tribune,” published in that paper on September 2 , and Mr. subsequently reproduced by a few English papers. Davis himself acting had been as correspondent in Belgium, andhegivesinstances of the“unnecessary, German army.” S o did Mr. wanton outrages of the Gerald Morgan, another American correspondent, about the same time. * * * In third the place-and this should be particularly noted-this wanton destruction, accompanied with harshtreatment of non-combatants,was all butgiven up in the stages later of the campaign. Why? Because the Germans had in the interval been making bids for the sympathy of neutral countries, and no sympathy was forthcoming on account of, I do not say atrocities, buttheharshtreatmentof non-combatants which the Germans themselves admitted in their own newspapers and sought to justify under the plea of “military necessity.’’ Further,“Fairplay ” isquitewrong in saying that there were no official inquiries. The Belgian Government,beforeitleftforFrench soil, made very searching inquiries and issued two-I believe I am right in saying that there were a t least two-official reports All the evidence in these reports had been very carefully sifted. They gave definite details of harsh treatment to non-combatants which would certainlycome under the heading of “atrocities.” “Fairplay” Seems to be uncertainwhatan“atrocity” i s ; b u t thefirstpocket “ atrocity ” is dictionaryIturnup tells me thatan “ great wickedness o r cruelty.” *** The difference between theGermanarmyandother armies, SO far as atrocities are concerned, I have already emphasised. In other armies there have been atrocities because the men gotout of hand. Men usually do at some period or other in a campaign ; and very few wars have free been from atrocities of some In sort. the present case, however, we have published evidence that the German soldiers were encouraged and even ordered by their officers to terrifythe civilpopulation. This is the new and dangerous feature of modern warfare introduced by the German General Staff. + Y * Nor is this all. The French Government made inquiries into the atrocities committed in eastern Belgium and the on French frontier; the and result an was official French protest sent to all the Great Powers on September 5 last. Thisprotestwas accompaniedwith ten separateanddetailedseries ofmemorandagiving full particulars of thecharges made. The memoranda themselves would occupy several columns of THENEW AGE, andthey are clear and definite. So definitewere they, indeed, thattheGermanGovernment could put forward no other plea than that o “military necessity,” f and this plea is decidedly not good enough. As for Reims Cathedral, the evidence regarding it is surely conclusive. WhentheGermansweremakingprogress in the direction of Reims,and evenwhenthey had surroundedthetown, we heardnothing of theCathedral tower being used as a post of observation. It was only when the invaders werebeingdrivenback that Reims was shelled ; and the first excuse given by the Germans had nothingtodo with posts of observation. Itwas at first stated by theGermanpapersthattheFrench troops were so near the town that it was not possible to avoid shelling the Cathedral. When it was pointed out by the French Government that this excuse would not hold water-for one thing, the artillery fire of the enemy has always been pretty accurate, whatever we may Mr. Brenton pleads for fair play for Germany. Surely Germany is getting it in T H E NEW AGE to an infinitely greater extent than in any other English paper? I repudiate the charge of anti-German bias simply because I quotefactsandinsinuatethatthePrussian as conqueror can be,and as a rule is, aratherunpleasant person to have dealings with. The fact that I resent the German methods of waging however, war, does not prevent me from resenting with equal intensity the disgracefultreatment which theGermans in thiscountry are ‘being made to suffer throughthe efforts of irresponsible newspapers. I cannot find words sufficiently strong to condemnthe “ Daily Mail ” and‘‘Evening News” outburst ; but I am sorry to see that a new and is threatened. The even more dangerous outburst “Mail ’’ of this morning-I write on Nol-ember 4contains a leader demanding conscription. I venture to agreemostheartily with theEditorofthisjournal in saying that we shall get as many men as we want if with the we paythem ; butit is not for me to deal economicaspectofthisquestion. Iam concernedwith itfromanotherpoint of view;andfromthe pointof view of our international powerconscription would be fatal to this country. *** It is only by having a professional army, even though it is so miserably underpaid, that we h a w been so successful in the field. Ourtroopshave had years of training ; andtheir power of endurance,theirmarksof the manship,andtheiradaptability arethewonder Continent. A German soldierwithtwoyears’ training, or a French soldierwiththree. is no match for one of our men. Imustaddthatmilitaryexperts in France and Russia and even Germany always have realised this ; and nothing’ would suit the Germans better than that we should give up the advantages of our voluntary army in return for the mere numbers that conscription 29 would afford us. Numbersundoubtedlycount; no one denies it. But a well-trained professionalforceofonethird or even one-fourth strength the of a conscript army counts as its equal. And whatdo wegain by our conscription? W e have in theUnitedKingdom a population of 45,000,000 to drawupon, as compared with the 66,000,000 o theGermanEmpire. f W e lose far more people by emigration every year than Germany does-the decline of emigration from Germany is remark,2,000,000 births in Germany able. Further,thereare every year, and only about half that number here. Do those facts tell in favour of conscription?Every military expert in this country-and the heads of ourreal military expertsarenotturned by thegutterPress, however hysterically it may shriek-knows that all the evidence is against conscription for England, but heavily in favour of a much larger standing army than we have taken thetrouble t o maintain.Afterthewar we may have an army of, say, 400,000 men instead of our previous 160,000 or so ; but even this will not Save u s when another war breaks out unless we take the preliminary precaution of indicating where our sympathies lie. *** canhardlyadministertheir ownaffairs,letaloneadminister the affairs of twenty million people-half their own population-who differ from in themtemperament, in outlook, and above all in language. * * * As I have been saying in these columns for four years, the French Government has complained to us time after time thatitsForeign Office could notget a definite public answerfrom u s withregard to thesending of troops to the Continent. After much effort, as I stated not long ago, an “understanding” was reached ;but our a formal Government positively refused toenterinto alliance. Now, a formalFranco-Britishalliancewould have prevented the outbreak of this war. I t is by this time notorious that the Germans did not expect that we would join in it ; and a clear statement on our part that we couldnotafford,even if onlyfor strategic reasons of the French coast, see to connected with use the Francedefeated byGermanyagain wouldhave put a stop toGerman ambitions forthisgeneration. It was only the fear of the influence of noisy pacifists, the fear of losing their votes and the votes of their friends, that made our Government hangback;andit isforthis reason that all the friends of peace should be unsparing in their criticism of the pernicious school which _deceived itself and a largepart o the nationregarding Gerf many’s intentions. Sir John Brunner, Sir Alfred Mond, the Scotts of the ‘‘Manchester Guardian,” Mr. W. H. Massingham, Mr. A. G. Gardiner, Mr. E. D. Morel, Mr. NormanAngell, the cocoa newspapers-for all of them no criticism can be too severe ; and it is essential for ournationalsafetythatthey,and people of their kidney, shall never again taken be seriously’ by the British nation, or allowed to exercisetheslightest influence ontheconduct of our nationalaffairsDeathbed repentances are too late when the enemy is at the gates ; and although some pacifists have had the grace to apologisefor theirconduct in the past this cannot excuse them. The pacifists a r et h e . most dangerous enemies the nation possesses, they and must debe stroyed. *** TheGermans,andparticularly the Prussians, are a strong, warlike race ; or perhaps I should say a collection o strong and f warlike races. The predominant State among them, Prussia, is the most warlike ofall: They are not prepared to discuss or negotiate ;they have a very definite notion of what they want ; they are prepared to fight a s a matter of course ; they are extraordinarily. efficient ; they are well led by their natural leaders ; and the fighting-man among them is still held to be far superior to trader. countries the The all aroundthese bellicose Statesarequietand peaceable, anxious to let alone and t o be let alone. N o more wars of conquest for them, and for France least o fall ! Up to a few months ago the greater part of Europe, outside Germany, believed-say, rather, felt convinced-that the map of Europe wouldneverberadicallychanged. The Germans believed that itcould,andtheyset out to do it.Only an exceptionallyfavourablecombination of circumstances enabled three strong Powers to combine against them. This is leaving Belgium out of the reckoning-Belgium, without whose aid we should have been badly beaten at the very start. * * * That is our problem. By throwing Austria the on back of Prussia we’ gainbreathingspace ; but letno oneimaginethat we therebyputanendfor ever to Germany’s ambitions. W e merely postpone next the attempt to attain them. “A. E. R.” in this journal said a few weeks ago that the gods resented our bourgeoisie sitting in the seats o the f mighty. The phrase was pointedandaccurate. No suchremark could be made of Germany, where power is in the hands of people who endeavour,onphilosophicprinciples, to useitfor the advancement of the nation. Let us recollect that nearly nine centuries ago a powerfulforeignercame among us who an at stroke the put end a to individualist anarchy prevailing in the jumble of kingdoms and principalities which then formed England. He and his successors knew how to unite and lead : can that bedenied,? By a coincidence he bore the same name as the Kaiser ; and we suffered his intrusion because then, as now, the supreme power was in the wrong hands. -Military Notes. B y Romney. THERE could be no more fitting occaision for the further Mr. R. R. Kerr, to take the third letter, fears that the solution I have spoken of will be useless a s a means of checking Germany’s progress. taking The away of Posen, EastandWestPrussia,and Alsace-Lorraine, and the addition of Austria to the Germanic Federation, will not, I admit, go very far towards bringing German progress to ahalt ; butit is thebestsolution which statesmen have yet thought out. Mr. R. R. Kerr’s proposal is,Iregrettosay,impracticable. W e know that the Germans will smart after their defeat ; and they would smart still more if half o them, or at any rate a f third of them, were placed under the power of France. Mr. Kerr can imagine as well as I can the enormous difficulties a FrenchGovernmentwouldhaveinadministering such a motley assembly of States-even supposing that the French people had ever shown any talent for administration, which theyhavenot.TheFrench, despite their high civilisation and scientific progress, consideration of certain theories of training which have frequently been expounded in these notes-although by nomeansoriginated in them-and an assimilation of which would give that us artist in men who is so urgently needed for the training and organisation of our secondline forces-but who has been hitherto so conspicuously absent. Nothing has been more noteworthy in thepresentwarthantheabsence onevery s i d e of anything approaching genius. The last similar occasion forth pecks -the struggle of the Revolution-brought of genius ; but 1914, though it has revealed on the one sidemarvellous organisation,andontheotherextraordinary national coolness and tenacity-not to mention a dozen otherqualities in the mass-has notto date shown us one man whom history can really make a tale fact I don’t very well see history how is about. In goingtomake a taleaboutthis war at all. “ They ranged up, whole nations of them, in two long lines, and went at it, hammer and tongs, until the one side or the o casualtiesandexf other collapsed from sheer force haustion ”-that is really all the history o this amounts f to. Artistically it is as great a failure as aZolanovel f -which fatuouslyattempts by accumulation o detail to produce the effect that is only achievable by the few master strokes of the pen. 30 It is thisprofoundly uninspiring quality which accounts f €or the dearth o good poetry that has already been reof great marked in THENEW AGE, and for the dearth statesmenandleaderswhichis my theme to-day. Yet surely never in English history the was opportunity more striking ! We are creating an army of a million as surely as an men-raising itfromthenothingness army ever was so raised. W h a t a chance for a statesman-a nation’s man, a manwhoknowsEngland ! What might not such a man do by utilising those traits o loyalty,poetry andlove of adventure in which the f English excel all other men? And have we utilised them? By God, no ! Not we. The best wehave been a hastyand clumsy adaptation of the able todois stereotyped peace training-good enough peace for perhaps and for the men who join in peace-but heart and soul breaking at the present epoch. Educated men who have joined with discipline ingrained in them-the war recruit is not rebellious unless he is goaded or bored into being so-are forced through the same back-breaking routine was as devised for the training of the wasters and bad lots who were crimped or pressed or bribed the into standing armies of the eighteenth century ; anxious and eager to learn, and able to do so, theyarekeptat such tomfoolery assquad drilland section and platoon training until the keenness has gone f out o them, and they become bored and surly, and unmanageable,anddrunken.Thenthereistrouble,and the detention barracks are full of them. It makes one sick. *** ing on so small a scale as that in squads, sections, and platoons. In order to get men to act in peace as you want them to act in war-which after all is the object of any training-you have got to produce the illusion of war, and that illusion cannot be produced except by respectably large numbers-a battalion or more. Numbers generate enthusiasm : they. are inthemselves inspiring, their and operations also are unmistakable, whilst aimless the wanderings of half a dozen men, lost in the area of their training ground, inspire nobody else, and certainly not themselves. I was therefore not surprised to find thebattalion, mildly speaking, “ fed up,” and their staleness was the greater in that those responsible had forbidden inter-section or inter-platoon sham fights-which might otherwise have added a little reality to the game-and decreed that all attacks should “ pole targets ”-series o fw o o d e n bemadeagainst like an heads on poles, which are supposed to look enemy, but don’t. Infact nobody waslearning anything, and time was being thrown away. * * * I am not myself an organiser or a poet, and I cannot give here on paper a programme showing how the New Army should be raised and trained. Even had I better notions than I have, it would be impossible to express them on paper in terms intelligible to the layman. This is one of those cases where knowledge is withheld from who all thosebutthe initiate-in otherwordsthose have themselves trodden the road that leads to it, passed through the various stages of lessening ignorance that precede, and this simply because the traversing of that road and the passing through those stages affords the training in theproper appreciation ofvalueswithout which thestudentcannot divine themeaning of the words spoken to him. For no man can be told in words in his own heart. that of which the root is not already But I will endeavour ta convey by an example some idea of what I am pointing to. At this point fortunately something-either the necesor perhaps a natura1 sity of speedingupthetraining, desire to start doing something himself, led the Brigadier tojumpthenexttwostagesand to launchthe battalion together three with others on a Brigade attack.Greatweretheprophecies o evil;many were f w a s pointedout,whohad not theprophets;men,it yet mastered the attack by platoons, let alone by companies battalions, or could scarcely expected be to succeed in brigades ! But Brigadier the held t o his purpose ; and one fine morning we saw the Brigade of some 3,500 men drawn up ready for the advance. * * * * * * Some time ago I was watching the training of a new battalion which for about two months had been engaged section and solely upon what are known as squad, platoon training. idea The of keeping men for two months or more upon squad, section, or platoon trainf ing comes, I believe, from France or one other o those Chestertons, where happy countries beloved of the people think quite rapidly, quite madly, and, generally, f quite wrong. The theory o it is this : that as a squad ‘is a quarter of a section, and a section quarter of a platoon,and a platoonquarter of a company,and a f company quarter o a battalion, and so forth, it is necesto be perfectlytrained as a squad sary for the squad ‘before it goes on to being trained as part of a section ; for a section to be perfectly trained as a section before it is trained as part o a platoon, and so on. The idea f is plausible, and you will find itall expounded with admirable system andclarity in theFrenchInfantry The idea Training, whence, I believe, we borrowed it. of eachsuccessivecore o the great militarymachine f fitting into the next one like the gradually diminishing boxes in a Chinese puzzle, and not inserted in its place until it has been tooled and polished to a perfect fit, has a finality which is attractive; but it has also one defect. Squads, sections, and platoons not are boxes. They are men ; and in order to get men to learn anything you have got to interest them. Now it is a further characteristic of men that they refuse to be interested in train- Fromtheveryfirstitwasobviousthattherewas a new spirit in the men. Therushes,formerly of a slack and straggling character, were made with impetuosity and enthusiasm, the “covering fire” was managed for the firsttime with something approaching success, a fault hitherto ineradicable-the tendency of individuals to hesitate or swerve in their course upon encountering such obstacles as streamsorpatches of gorse-now vanished entirely, and the went men straight ahead withglee. One couldsee thattheyweretaking pride and interest in their work. The supports were illmanaged,butthatwasdue to theusual difficulty in peacetraining,into which itisunnecessarytoenter. The final assault with the bayonet, started by one company on its own initiative, was taken up by the whole line and carried through well. At the “close,” the men, although they had actually undergone a physical- strain fargreaterthanany imposed by the“platoontraining” that they had found so wearisome, were anxious to continue-a thing hitherto unheard of-and everyone was generally well pleased. *** As we marched home the men were singing lustily. The company officers seemed at a loss to account for this sudden improvement in their commands, but were themselves too muchinfectedby the universal good spirits to speculateabout it. TheAdjutant,anunimaginative at the whole business, and professional, astonished equally at a loss to account for it (no mention of it being discoverablein the Red book), was at first inclined to put it down to drink, and was heard inquiring whether the medical officer had ordered a double issue of ‘rum that morning. This explanation failing and him, no other offering itself exceptsuch a s would have compelled him to forswearhisallegiance to the training manuals, he performed an act of faith in t h e W a r Office and announced that the battalion was simply mad. The Colonel said nothing at all, so let us hopethat he thought the more. And as for myself, I stored the facts up for future reference, reflecting what these men could do if theywereproperlyhandled.Asitis, of course they will just stand up in two long lines, exactly like the others,and g o at it hammer and tongs, until they or the enemy collapse from casualties or exhaustion. 31 Freedom in the Guild. II. I COME now to the second fallacy upon which the Collectivist bases his argument that theGuild system would to the individual worker. When not bring freedom the Guildsman urges the dangers of bureaucracy in the Collectivist State he is met with a tu quoque; the Guilds, he istold, will be nolessbureaucratic.Nay, they willbe even more so; for they will substitute for the single great tyranny of the centralised State a multitude of petty tyrants, each of whom will be to the full as oppressive to the individual as the responsible civil servant is likely to be. As Mr. Chiozza Money has put it, a tyrant is none the less tyrannical for being a petty ‘tyrant. This view, orsome view resemblingit,istaken by critics of the most diverse types. On the one hand, it istheargument of thebureaucratwho wouldreduce allaspirationsafter freedom to an absurdity ; on the other, a very similar view is advanced by some lovers of freedom who, while they wish to realise industrial democracy, fearthecentralisationwhichtheybelieve to be essential to the system of National Guilds. The two types of objection demand different very answers, though it is not possible to keep them wholly distinct. I shall deal in this article with the former line of attack, and shallcome nexttime to that which is more dangerous, because the motive behind it is more worthy. I t will be well, however, to guillotine the Girondins before turning our attention to the Jacobins. The Collectivist urges that the workman has to choose between two tyrannies, and that the tyranny of State Socialism will be lessoppressive, a s well as more efficient, than that of the Guild. Thetyranny of theStateDepartment, or the tyranny of the great corporation, which is it to be? It is here ‘once more necessary to remind the Collectivist thatheisdealingwithmen,andnotwithmachines. The answer to the problem is in terms of human character. W e have to ask ourselveswhich of the twoalternativesystemsisthemore likely to call f into play thequalities o initiative and independence. For the danger of bureaucracy in any system of organisationvariesinverselywith the spirit o independence f displayed by the individuals whom it governs. Political democracy, have we agreed, is ineffective because, resting upon an autocratic industrial system, it does not call into play the energy needed t o control it. Over thevastmechanism of modern politics the individual has no control, not because the State is too big, but because he is given no chance of learning the rudiments of self-government within a smaller unit. In the f business o his daily life he is subject to an autocracy which at every turn stifles,instead of developing,his natural capacities self-government self-asserfor and tion. Autocracyin industry finds itsinevitable reflection in political bureaucracy. On this ground it has too often been concluded that all institutions are naturally bureaucratic, and, despairing of freedom, men have concentrated on the task of reducing the number of responsible bureaucrats. Butdemocracyinindustry is very different frompoliticaldemocracy. In industry the individual is .dealing something he with that himself understands, with something fromvague free the glamour with which the politician contrives to surround his own sphere of operations. The Guild officer will not be able to go theway of allpoliticians,becausethe Guild member will soon find him out and learn to control By C,D H. Cole. . No Guild-Socialist denies the need for discipline and order. within the Guild. Whathe does deny is the Prussian theory that discipline can only secured be through tyranny. Given a Guild permeated by the spirit of equality and well providedwithdemocratic institutions, all needful discipline will follow. For man is not naturally a rebel against order, unless the order is itself unjust. him. I havemanytimesheardemployersoflabour advance,almost in thesamebreath,twocontradictory opinionswhichbearuponthis point. Having told you that all workmen are lazy dogs and that the only thing for them is the iron heel, the Capitalist will g o on, without a break, to declare that hisworkersgive him no trouble, because always the he puts right men over them, There is, behind this contradiction, an important of foremen truth. It does matter very much what kind the workers set have over them. Where, as in too manymodernfactories,theforemanischosenfor his slave-driving capacities, the worker naturally is and justifiably a “lazydog’’ ; what work hedoesisdone grudgingly, because it is exacted b y means of a suspicious compulsion. Where, on other the hand, the employer has sense enough, from his own point of view, to choose foremen who trust their men and treat them as human beings, there are many cases in which work is done well and cheerfully,evendespite thepermanent SO exploitationunder which theworkerissuffering. ready are most men to obey and to work willingly that they are prepared, in return for so small a concession, to forget the great injustice of Capitalism itself. If this is true under the present system, how much there will be more will itbe so in the Guild,where no consciousness of exploitation to stay a man’s hand fromgiving manfully of hisbest ! To do goodwork for a capitalist employer is merely, if we view the situation rationally, to help a thief to steal more successfully ; good work done for the Guild will bedone in the interests of asociety of equals,and will appeal to the highest and strongest of human motives-the sense of fellowship. a Even purely rational man would work well for his Guild : how much more willing will be the a creature of sentiment,’ service of theaverageman, ever more inclined to give than to take, if only he can feel that in giving he is serving a fellow and an equal ! A 1 this will seem the veriest nonsense to the hard1 headed business-men who have of lateyears become converts to Collectivism, and even tothemore sentimentalrankand file of the Socialistmovement, who combine with an almost maudlin personal benevolence a capacityforswallowing the mostcynicaldoctrineson the subject of human nature. Fabian The heresy of distrust has sunk deep into our souls; even if we admit the vast difference that a good foreman can make to the spirit o the f workshop, most the part of us cannot believe that the workers in the Guild would know how to choose the right foremen. Just as democracy in politics is assailed because it brings the demagogue to power, democracy industry feared in is because the workers might elect to be led by industrial demagogues. The fact that inpolitics thisfearis notgroundless lendstheargument plausibility. But the Guildsman’s whole answer is based on the difference between politics and industry. The demagogue can succeed in political life because the individual voter has so little check upon him ; thereisno politicalcheck-weighmantotellthe worker when he is being cheated. The politician makes his election speeches and is triumphantly returned-on promises. He remains in power for a number of years, during which things happen. He and another man very much like him, who poses as his opponent, then return to hisconstituencyandmakemore promises.Even if theworkerhas sufferedinconvenience and oppression he can hardly bring it hometo the bland and persuasive gentlemaninthe frock-coat. ‘ H e listensagaintothe specious rhetoric, and the demagogue is again returned t o power. Or, if he decides in favour o a change, and f elects the other fellow-“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” The misdeeds politicians of come not home to roost. But can any reasonable man suppose that democracy in industry will follow the same course? Let us face the worst possibilities of the case. In the Guild there will be many kinds of officials to elect, from the foreman of the individual shop the to members of the national executive council. Let us takethetwoextremecases separately. 32 Suppose, when theworkersfirst win theright of choosing their leaders, they show a general tendency to electincompetentforemen.Verypossiblythey will do HYSTERIA is infectious. Sheep never follow a bellso ; but what will follow? At every turn, every hour of wether with more submissiveness unthinking than every day, the workers in the shop will be conscious of crowds follow the first plausible scoundrel who thrusts the incompetence of the man they have chosen. He will ethics, justice, and morality aside and talks down to the be dealing with mattersthat they themselves underlevel of thelowestintellectinthegathering. A saint stand, and his interference will soon be resented by men and a charlatan may have an equally inspiring effect ; who know his business better than he knows it himself. butthereare no saintsnowadays,andthecharlatans. When day the of re-election comes round they will are innumerable. In particular, are saints. there no have had enough of him and his sort to choose a more at Carmelite House, where the Harmsworth papers are capable in place. man his Theworkers will haveto edited. T o do even Carmelite House justice, there was learn the art of choosing the right foremen ; but, given never any even pretence to holiness there many for these conditions, can it be doubted that the lesson will years. Lord Northcliffe, who was clever enough to be learnt, and learnt without delay? realise that he was a quack, staffed his papers with other On this point the case is clear; but what of the other humbugs who, under his expert directions, were able to extreme?Willtheworkersknow how to elect their fool the people. Some of these rogues actually came to. national officers, above all those in whom thehigher believe in themselves and in their preposterous papers ; kinds of technical, commercial and professional capacity and at this day there are “special correspondents” con-will be essential? Let us admit that this is not so easy, nected with Carmelite House who are entitled to nearly though here too the method o trial and error will prof as much respect as a dancing Dervish, and perhaps to duce its effect. Moreover, in learning choose to the rather more than the leader of a Voodoo orgie. right local officers, the members will have mastered Evil as the example set by the Harmsworth papers. the first great lesson of self-government ; they will be was from the beginning, it is only since the war broke able to g o on and master its further lessons. out that the delirious antics of the crack-brained jour-, As we shall see in more detail later on, the national a matter of nalistswhowriteforthemhavebecome executive of the Guild will not be selected by means of national concern. “It ispreferable not to deceive the pub-a simple mass ballot of all the members.Manyand lic,”saidGoethe ; “but, if you do wish to deceiveit,, various forms of local and sectional election will be emnever try to do so intelligently.” This axiom might very ployed,according to the needs of the various Guilds. as the“Daily well serve as a mottoforsuchpapers Thus, the corporate capacity of each district and of each Mail” and the “Evening News,” whose maniacal hal-. craft within theindustry will becalled into play, and lucinations on the subject of spies have been treated in thesame incentives to a right choice a s applyinthe manyquartersas if theyweretheutterances of men election of foremen will operate here also. One of the in theirsober senses. The dementedclamour of halfmain problems o Guild government will be the securf starvedjournalists,whose only aimwastokeeptheir ing of a national executive that represents the General jobs by inventing sensations, was actually taken, Will of the members. seriously by Lord Kitchener himself ; and men like, Of thismorehereafter.Butwhat of themore disLord Northcliffe, Mr. Marlowe, Blumenfeld, Mr. Mr. tinctly professional officers of the Guild ; what of those Arnold White, and the editor of the “Globe,” instead who will correspond to the technical experts,general of being put under lockand key as apublicnuisance. managers, and heads of departments In the industry of and a public danger, are allowed to add regularly to theto-day? For these there is no need to adopt the method nervousness of the nation through the columns of the of mass election ; in many cases they will no doubt be pernicious newspapers for which they are responsible. appointed by the executive committee, subject perhaps It is well known that, in practice, Lord Kitchener can to the ratification of the annual delegate meeting. The have: his own way in most cases ; and we shall, we hope, technical expert can hardly be chosen by a mass vote, be doing him good service by telling him what the sober for his expertness is ex hypothesi something which the elements among the public are thinking these days. majority of the members of the Guild cannot hope to Lord Kitchener, who has lived so long in countries farunderstand. The same contention applies with equal removed from Europe, be may excused knowing for force to the commercial experts, who will be in charge little or nothing of English public opinion ; for treating of the trading operations of the Guild. They, too, canthematureEnglish public a s if itwere composed of not be well chosen by a general vote. I t is enough underbred Egyptians Soudanese. and If the ‘great that they should be the servants of an authority directly majority of even this public, the majority that seldom representing the whole Guild ; for it is the business of counts, and counts now for even less than usual, turns.. the expert to provide the means of securing the ‘ends away in some disgust from the frenzied gutter Press, it which the democracy has in view. The executive, may be taken for granted that the responsible elements backed by theannualdelegatemeeting, shouldselect among the public generally are showing sound judgment and control all such experts. Then, if the expert makes when maintain they that all theHarmsworthpapers.. himself unpleasant, and the executive refuses to remove ought to be suspended until the war is well over-a sughim on direct protest from the branches of the Guild, gestion which, despite the close professional bonds that the affair will be thrashed out in the delegate meeting, unite them, even responsible journalists are making in which will be, in such a case, supreme. regard to journalists of the “Daily Mail” standard. A I have put the position concretely anddogmatically fortnightago I gaveinstances of “Daily MaiI” and’ for the sake of clearness ; but, of course, the Guild may “Evening News” mendacity on the subject of aliens. A will always play the game of “Cheat the Prophet.” It special article in the “Observer” of November I may be for the Guild to decide on its own methods of demoserve as a further corrective. A special legal corresponcratic government ; I a m only stating what seems the dentpointsoutthatevenalienshavealwaysenjoyed mostobvioussolution. special privileges in this country, no matter with whom It seems, then, that the Guild can be fitted to choose o r how often we were at war. Two quotations from the its leaders at both ends of the series, both in the small article,which are themselvesquotationsfrom original“ shop unit and in the great national unit.Doubtless it sources, will makethis clear. Takethisclausefrom will learn theart of self-government gradually, and Magna Charta : there will be mistakes at first; but these mistakes will All merchants, if they are not openly prohibited before, be largely got over in the intermediate period when the shall havetheirsafeandsureconduct to depart out of Guild has stillonly a partial footholdincontrol. Men England, to come into England, to tarry in and go) become democrats by conviction, but they become good throughEngland,as well byland as bywater, to buy democrats only by practice. Every new system must and sell without any manner of evil tolls, by the old and‘ fall into errors;it will surviveitserrors if the ideal rightful customs, except in time o war; and if they be f behind it is worthy of humanity. of a land making war against us, and be found in our The Charlatans. 33 realm at the beginning of the ‘wars, they shall be attached without harm of body or goods, until it be known unto us, or our Chief Justice, how our merchants be entreated therein the making land war against us; and if our merchants be well entreatedthere, theirsshall be likewise with us. This, again, from Statute XIV, Richard: II :Merchant strangers repairing into the realm of England shall be well and courteouslyandrightfullyused and governed in the said realm, to the intent that they shall have the greater courage to repair into the same. lettershave, been found,” said the Home Office. And SO on. The most despicable feature of the further campaign was the attack on naturalised Germans. Most naturalised Germans, as you know, left Germany SO that they andtheirsonsmightescape military service;and, of course, they looked upon their naturalisation papers as sacred. The“Daily Mail” would havenone of this. “The Naturalisation form is just a scrap of paper,” it howled, “Once a German always a German. ” (October 21). Chesterton minor was inspired by this. Writing f inthe“Manchester Daily Dispatch” o thefollowing day (and later in the “New Witness”) he said : “Every German-bornman in England,whethernaturalisedor a ,conunnaturalised, is a German. If he is not he is temptibleskunk.Inneithercaseought he, at such a time as this, to enjoy the privileges o citizenship. “ A f nice, pleasant man, this, to be editing a weekly paper ! And then he talks about “Our own code of justice and honour. ” These men are charlatans. They have done England more harm than all the German spies who have ‘ever lived here. W e can defend ourselves from invaders and from spies in the midst of us ; but what defence can we put up against these emotional crackpots who have befouled our national reputation for the exercise o f common sense and sanity? It may be urged that we on the staff of THENEW AGE render the work o administraf tion more difficult by criticising authorities the and showingupthefrivolousnotions which have induced some of them to act. This is not really so. The views of the responsible elements we set forth are the views in the nation ; the elements that simply must be listened to. Atthepresenttime,morethanever, well-founded and just criticism cannot but benefit the highest and the lowestin the land, from Lord Kitchener himself down to the Royal Family. The anti-German campaign, we are glad to say, has been checked ; and the pen of the present writer, barbed with authoritative information, will beeffectivelyused to resumeit. The Harmsagainstanybodywhotries worth conscription campaign is in the same category. For reasons already touched upon in this journal, conscription this for country would be unnecessary and dangerous. But the “Times” and the “Mail’ ’ are not influenced by suchconsiderations.Beinginwant of a sensation to take the place of the sensation they dropped, they took up conscription-whether it is right or wrong does not matter to them a jot. The “Times” twopenny editors, who twist their brains mercilessly in tryingtoadapt threepenny headlines tothefarthing public of a penny paper : what do they care if applied conscriptionthrewtheentire political, economic, and social organisation of England into the direst confusion? Not a straw. A new sensation like that would be meat and drink to them. Wheretheir“interests”are concerned, national traditions, national ideals, matter nothing at all. For the sake of England, and of every sound principle that England represents to the world, it must be hoped thatLordKitchener will not allowhimself to be led astray by the“Times’ ” alternatemoansandshrieks for conscription, as he was by the “Daily Mail’s” agonising yelps for the arrest of enemy aliens. LEIGHTON WARNOCK. J. GOD SAVE CAPITAL, Tune : God Save the King. God save our- Capital, Protect our Capital, Vive Capital ! May our interest increase And profits ne’er decrease, And business never cease, Flourish, Capital. CYRIL, . DAVIS. S to the “Here,then,”addsthewriter,“isthekey present situation, and I think it explains many things which the unlearned have rebelled against.” As we all know, thesemoderateexamples of ancient datehave been forgotten amid bluster the of theHarmsworth newspapers. Up to a week o r so ago the large English colonies in Baden, Dresden, Hamburg and were unwere, indeedr “interned” at molested. A few sailors Hamburg; but they were interned in their own ships, not in concentrationcamps. It wasthiscountry,not the country at war with us, that first began to ill-treat enemy aliens. T h e W a r Office-so at any rate Home Office officials have said-lost its nerves and its head when the Carmelite hacks got to work. In reply to the urgent questions put to it, the Home Office promised to arrestall the enemyaliensinthecountry,maleand female, at the rate o 6,000 a day, so that they would f all be “cleared up”-the expression is none of minein ten days. The order given was ; and poor, pale waiters and barbers and porters were hurried to Olympia. Men whocould nomorespythan fly, menwho couldnottell the differencebetween a howitzer and a maxim, men who could not take a photograph or draw a straight line, were harried, browbeaten, set upon by excitedcrowds, andrushedtoconcentration campsand this at a time when the authorities were vainly trying to find accommodation the for newly joined recruits ! The sequel was inevitable. When four thousand frightened Germans had been “dealt with,’’ an adjutant hurried from the W a r Office to the HomeOffice and implored his colleagues to stop-there was no room. The police were sorry-they had, had their orders from on high, and unless the great man himself withdrew them the arrests would have to go on. The orders werewithdrawn ; butthe police were notified thatthearrests would have to be proceeded with when accommodation could be found. all And thisbecausetheadvertising revenue of the most mendacious newspapers in Europe had declined-because the smooth-tongued “Globe” tried to go one better than the hypocritical “Express” ; because the canting Northcliffe tried to outdo the prevaricating German-American Yiddish Blumenfeld ! Unfortunatelyfor our reputation as rational beings, o this f the effects of this rabid anti-German campaign, unprovoked attack ondefenceless “ enemies ” in the not at point. The semimidst of us, did stop that as the ‘‘ Koelnische official Germannewspapers,such Zeitung” and the “Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung,” protested ; and-still worsefromourpointof viewthey protested in very reasonable and moderate language. Therewas n o doubtthattheircomplaints were justified. The“Evening News” of so recent a date as November 2 tried to make it appear that ‘‘There is very little distress among Germans” ; but this was merely another lie added to thehundreds which this very paper had been telling since its anti-German feelings had become too palpitating to be borne. Some of the Harmsworth were lies quoted in the“Pall Mall Gazette” of November 6 , with Home Office denials opposite in parallel columns. The juxtaposition was funny. ‘‘Warships have been mysteriously torpedoed,” have been said the Carmelite papers. “No warships Office. mysteriously torpedoed,” commented the Home ‘‘Letters conveying information to the enemy have been “No such seized,” said the papers we are discussing. 34 Turkish Independence. AT the moment of writing Turkey is, according to the Press,alreadyhard at war withtheTripleEntente; yet the Same newspapers, which announce the fact with sorrow or with glee according kind, to their are puzzled to explain the posture of the Turkish Governo some f ment; which, even the after bombardment Russian Black Sea ports by Turkish warships, and the f irruption of a handful o Wild Arabs into (technically) Egyptian territory, appears to think that it can still expect to treat and to be treated as a neutral Power. This to “Turkish Duplicity.” The the journalists ascribe position will bebetterunderstood by those readers of T H E NEW AGE whohavemarkedwhat I have written previously upon this subject. ThepresentTurkishCabinet includes thebestand f coolest heads o theparty of Union andProgress.It has been struggling for the last three months against tremendous pressure, financial, political-and, I may add, seditious, since there has been stirring up of bitter feeling in the Turkish hotheads against sober the The only thing that counsels of the Government. could prevented have them from succumbing tothis pressure ultimately, or being thrown from Powerwhich will be more probably their fate-was strong and timely help fromEngland.TheotherEntentePowers theycannot trust; both are besides unpopularamong the Turkish people. An opportunity England for to afford suchhelp was given when the Porte denounced the Capitulations, as I pointed out in THENEW AGE a t the time. If England wished to keep Turkey out of the war, and at the same time strike a death-blow at the so then. Had German influence, shecouldhavedone I been the BritishAmbassador at Constantinople,entrusted with a charge to conciliate and win the Turks, I should on that occasion a t once have gone to Talaat well as yours ; let’s Bey with “ This is our affair as work it out together ” ; and I should not have left him sketched out which could be till we had a scheme reasonably applied to Egypt to and Turkey. Meanwhile I should have telegraphed to London urging the BritishGovernment instantlytobacktheTurkish denunciation of theCapitulations by asimilar denunciation with regardtoEgypt.Had such a course been taken at that moment, the enthusiasm roused for England in the Turkish Empire would have been sufficient to resist effectually, andultimatelyovercome, the German influence. Our omission to support the Turkish Government on that occasion sealed its fate. The Germans, though incensed by the denunciation because they saw the opportunity i t gave to England, were delighted, when England failed to take that opportunity, to be able to say : “ Now you see the worth of English protestations.”It will naturallybeobjected that,had we supported Turkey strongly in denouncing the capitulations,we shouldhave angered our Allies ; also that we should have affronted sacrosanct financial interests ; alsothatwe should havestruck a blow at European solidarity ; in other words, that “ hawks dinna pick out hawks’ een.” The objection would not hold-for I have postulated the drawing up of a fair and reasonable scheme by Turkey and England-unless the desire repeatedlyexpressedbyour Allies forthemaintenance ofTurkishneutralitywerealtogether insincere. As S. Verdad justly remarks, the faults have not been upon one side only. The great fault of the Turks has always been their intense pride, national and personal, which makes them on occasions impracticable quite over .affairswhich seem to u s of very small importance. How oftenhave Itried, for instance, to get them to pay just a littlecourttoEnglishjournalists, especially to English journalists of the baser sort ; explaining them power can to the that be wielded in our countryindividuals’ by connected the with cheaper Press. They would not listen, always have scouted themerenotion of a Presscampaign as muchbelow their dignity. Consequently case not their has been evenstatedinthePress o Western Europe, save f by individuals of no importance like myself and in eclectic journals like THE NEW AGE. That, too, at a time when Russia, Greece, the Balkan States have been wooing, even subsidising, Western journalism. I happen to know of one English periodical o which the f editor was heard to say that the paper would have been pro-Turkhadthe ‘Turkish Government subscribed for thirty copies monthly. But Porte too the was sublime. “ T h a t is notourway,” I heard from Turks on all hands. “We o d not do these things.” It is a pity. In the spring of this year the Porte did at length condescend tothe notion-which wasfarfrombeing a mine-that it might be wise for Turkey to establish kind Press of Bureau in Londonanalogous to those already here run by her enemies. How much money o allocatingforthe f spurdo you thinktheythought pose? £250 a year. When Russia, I have heard, on “concilispends that amount in thousands annually ating British opinion,” and the Balkanites are-or were a little while ago-hard at work at the same business ! I t istrue,as S. Verdadsuggests,thattheTurks have not played into England’s hand diplomatically. They quite crudely asked her protect to them both fromGermanyandRussia.Theirexcuseis,that they could not understand the game of England. It was the f kind o game that England once had scorned to play. W e , pro-Turks in England, were astonished by it often. If-as I havesaid,and a s I knowis true-the Turks haveneverrun a Press campaign, while theRussians and the Balkanites have done so here in England pretty openly, why wasitconsidered by ourunknownrulers necessary to stop the party Press from pulblishing proTurkish articles stating or Turkey’s during case the Balkan War and since; why wasitnecessary to use government influence practically to boycott a proTurkishbook; unlesstherewassomesettledpurpose to the Turks. They feared the of our rulers hostile truth, one must suppose, could not afford to have the matter publicly discussed. Therehas been noparliain mentarydiscussion of the matter, the most serious its bearing the on British Empire which canbe imagined,exceptoneshortdebateupon a private member’smotionwhentheHousewasnearlyempty. Our rulers have doneseveralthingsinthisconnection to whichpeople who live under a constitutionalgovernmentareunaccustomed.Trulytherehave been faults on both sides. S . Verdad makes much of Turkish breaches of neutrality.There,too,therehavebeenfaults on both sides. A Turkish torpedo flotilla emerging from the Dardanellesforpracticewasstoppedandturnedback in its own territorialwaters by the alliedfleets. That of the Dardanelles. hostile action caused closing the And not long after, “ Russian torpedo-boats attempted to prevent the Turkish fleet from leaving the Bosphorus for the Black Sea. The Turkish ships thereupon opened fire upon them and sunk two of the Russian vessels. ” Thatwasthebeginning of theTurkishnavalaction against Russia-subsequently without the knowledge of the Porte; the anger of the Turkish crews making them easy the dupes of their German officers The Turkishsailors believed thatRussia was at war with Turkey. Very readily I admit there been that have faults on both sides. But where the are benevolent intentions of the Entente Powers towards Turkey, which S. Verdad has all along implied? a projectfor the partition of the The truth is that TurkishEmpirehas beenin the policy of theTriple Ententefromtheday when thelateKingEdward (called the Peacemaker) met the Czar a t Reval in June, 1908; that the Turkish revolution put it inthebackcould be groundfor a time,untiltheYoungTurks hustled, malignedandgenerallydiscreditedsufficiently f to make the execution o theprojectpossiblewithout too much outcry. England wavered from scheme the 35 but once, Over the Armenian inspectorships;andshe was pulled up sharp by Russia and Germany-not only Germany, as S . Verdadhasstated-objecting to her thought o helpingTurkey. f and Cold they began to destroy the mountains again and carry them to the sea, passing each granule through the Mills. When man came on the scene it was, of course, necessary that he also should be two-faced in order that he might be able to play the game along with allthe otherthings,andthiswasarrangedbefore he came out of Eden. In the course of agesthemixturehas been well preserved, nothing-at least, nothing that we know anything about-but is a mixture of the two. Gilbert was, as usual, epigrammatic when he said that every little boy or girl was born either a little Liberal or Conservative, but in that sense so too is everything in the world,and God and the Devil are the Leaders of the Government and the Opposition. With governments such as we know for our diagram a true governwe must be careful how we use it, but ment acting with the purpose of sailing the Ship well must from time to time set its sails at all sorts angles, of the sail and the rudder are always struggling, and the greater the struggle the steadier goes theShip, and the less influenced by outside waves currents. and In a well-arranged Statetheagent provocateur is a most necessaryandvaluable person, and in thedays when man was stillsheep-like he had to be artificially pro-vided. His friction produces the steam which in its. turn produces progress. A really law-abiding race a dull under the rule of areallawgiverwasprobably and sleepycrowd. But that there maybefrictionand at least appear real, and heat lawlessness the must hence the need of secrecy. W h o but a drunkard would trouble to quarrel with a scarecrow? So in past times it was only the trusted few who knew that it was God who at times assumed the horns and tail and went out from his seclusion in the palace to teach strange heresies in the streets, and the secret has been well kept : veryfew are there who have learned that it is really God whoisblackandnotthe Devil. All that we see under the light of Devil-sun, and by the light o brilf liant Devil-mind is visible only in so far as it is of the Devil. TheUnknown God lives, dark, hidden behind their light. And this is the meaning of the black Bambino and Krishna, and Saint Pancras, as also of some things in the Isa Upanishad. If then the censorship is being relaxed, what does it portend? As usual, when a Real Event happens it so even in our ‘polihappens all through the organism, tics we may find a clue. ThesecretiscomingoutthatourPartyPoliticsis something of a fraud, that the Augurs when off duty do so, what then? more than wink at another. one If Clearlythey bothrepresent in opposingwayssome common understanding. This may be good or bad ; let us leave off playing at angels and bogies, and take and f see what the hidden thing really is. This, o course, we shallbeabletodo easily now we know. Well, per; haps ; and evenprobably,inthissmalldepartment but none of the gods, even the least of them, care much for the stodgy ways of men and, having not been truly catalogued, soon spirit themselves away and hide again in the open. So weshallprobablyneverbedeprived of a will-o’-the-wisp, or a rainbow to keep us running after pots of gold and harden our muscles. The GoldenFleece andthe Golden Stag have been foundlongagoandarenow pot houses. The golden crock which we have been hunting since is the Golden Grail of Mind. Many have seen it, some of us have perf haps touched it and had a sip o what it holds, few are those who, priestlike, handle it. Its quest is not over yet by a long way, but it is time thatsome at any rate werebeginning to seek itnot only foritsvalue in ouncesTroy of gold. TO those who do SO it is still a god to be sought and forced on others after manner the of the Churches. To those who know a little better it is a devil tempting them to sinand SO betterstillunfound in the bowels of the earth.Butthosewhoknowbest probably love itas much as its contents, not because it is of gold, for it might as well be of mud, but because it was its Brilliance which helped them in their search. Having worked hard,in my sphere,forBritish influence in Turkey, I am heartbroken at the turn events have taken. Nor can I feel that we, the British party, have been beaten by the Russian party by fair means. Happily the unknown rulers who have laboured to produce this great catastrophe-the beginning of the end of British EmpireintheEast,thebeginningofthe f world-supremacy o Russia, if things go according to the wishes of the ‘‘ British ” Foreign Office-have provided Armageddon for all would-be suicides.Inotice in the party some Press diatribes which speak of Turkey’s “ treachery ” and “ baseingratitude,” to England ! Will not the Foreign Office, .now that i t has off those hounds, in common gained its call end, decency? I put it as a personal request to S. Verdad, the champion of the Foreign Office in thesecolumns, who is, I choose to think, himself an Englishman and not aRusso-Franco-Britishalien. MARMADUKE PICKTHALL. Cowley on Christianity give a good deal of food for thought. Mr. Cowley’s can, I think, as far as the matter of Devils is concerned, be aside, to put for him the question at bottom resolves itself into a count of the souls in the Church fold representingChurchassets. Adevilwho steals them is impoverishing Church, the therefore he mustbedealtwith severely. The souls are for the Church, not the Church for the souls. There is much that can be said for this view, but it is not self-evident, and seems out of favour at the present time. A s between Dr. Levy and Dr. Bridges my sympathies are certainly with Dr. Levy, but here again, as always, the matter is a protean one. Dr. Levy haslearnedto ignore the Devil, Dr. Bridges still fears and hates him. There isanother alternative-tolovehim. The Devil, not being a proper subject for thought o r conversation with right-minded people, is a very unknown person. So he must always be to a very large extent, for he is as some may have heard, even if it has meant nothing to them, Deusinversus.Thebesttreatise which I know on thesubject, at anyrate,availabletotheordinary reader, is by Mr. Chesterton. I daresaythatmost of those who read threw and aside Mr. Chesterton’s “Man who was Thursday” wondered how anyone could have such wild ideas, and having them, could demean himself by making half-a-crown out of them. But, though well disguisedtocatchthecasualreader,the book is reallyversion a of theGreat Epic. Whether the Heavenly Press Censorisasleeporwhetherthe I cannot time iscomewhensuch things may appear, tell, but certainly one of the great secrets of heavenly policy hasalways been therelationshipbetween God and the Devil. It is probable that the censor is not asleep, and hence we mayconsider what reasons can have dictated this change of policy. But first forthe relationship. I am afraid I , at any rate, can make no pretence to trace the various changes of guiseandgarb which thesetwo to moment great magicianshavetakenfrommoment to frustrate or aid each other’s designs. BU. if we go back to the beginnings, while they were resting before they again started to make the wheel hum, they seem to havebeenverymuchalike, if,indeed,therewere two o them at all. On this point history is meagre. f W e know they are twins and eternal, some say one is white and the other black. They are also, and this is really moreexplanatory in thesedays,the firstConservative and the first Liberal. I n early days as Gravity and Levitytheylaidouttheuniversebetweenthem, made the worlds and seas and mountains. Then as Heat By M, B. Oxon. THE views of Messrs. Bridges, Levy and Devils. 36 British Music v. German Music. B y Joseph Holbrooke. II. So here is the story of trouble ! British music is to be hadfortheasking.Weak-mindedcomposersstoopto any depth to get a single performance ! ’Their pride in their work is not--a “fee” would overpower their sense of modesty !-and they work for no fees. Hence their compositions are free, no one wants them, when they are performed the composer gets no benefit from it, and the works arenotrepeated.The public attituderemains indifferent, thecritics,knowingthe full state of the case (the works in manuscript and the parts and performance given by the composer) scoff ! as all do at a free gift, and smash the quality with no uncertain hand. Much a s I grieve, I remain proud for one reason, which is that I haveneveryet given my workaway.Conductors do not conduct for nothing, musicians do not play without fees, the ‘whole show is paid for, but the “universal provider”-the creator-in these days, anyway, must not talk of fees, he provides for the love o f the thing, and lives on what he can get, of course ! Is he not an artist? It is so vulgar to talk o f fees ! I used t detest the mention of trade unions, but if o this powerfulidea wasbroughtintothe world of a r t (andartists sadly need leading,farmorethan coalheavers, or navvies,etc.) one shouldseeamuchmore happy state of things than at present exists. The weak should not go to the wall while the strong exist-after all the strong have ever paid for the weak, it is in the nature of things-and the superior ability o one f musician will not interfere with him if he is associated with the rank and file. Afterall, the members of any orchestra are not identical in their gifts, but all prosper in the performance ! W e have, then, to plut our music on a basis, and this is made inconceivably difficult for us because we are told our countrymen will not listen to, or pay native for, work any if ! is It not known perhaps that he knows it operatic matters the are likeliest for us. I honestly believe, if there any is young man in this country who could give us thesloppiness of Puccini, orany otherItalian music-maker, he would get all ourpublishersinterestedin him ; they would offer himfees; large fees,. for they all deal with the profit-makers here! Brahmsrightlyhad a contemptforOldEngland,he and of his intellect, never came here ! He, others starvehere,butthe pellucid andmawkish melody of theItaliansisalways welcome. Onehasno need to think ! After all, Wagner cried in the wilderness, and so, suppose, I always it must be. Whenever have been performed in any of my dramas England, the Box Office has notbeen wildly besieged by our own people ; indeed, the loss entailed over Hol! But if no one will brooke is sometimes quite famous lose a trifle over any honest attempt to raise our musical art to a better level, it is a sorry job. Thank God, I have found they will do so, providing the work is done. After all, I am repeatedly told, our audiences request to be amused, first; must this be seen to. I t is o f paramountimportance,nodoubt, to beamused,but even takingthisinto account, when unknown I see operas by Russian composers drawing large audiences here, I have to think furiously,fortheBritish public know nothing of these operas, but they flock to see them, and, after all, theymay not be amused every time ! However, the “Coq d’Or” and the “Petruschka” ballet are splendid samples of the Russian wares, and deserve the success they haveattained here. Althoughcan I see that the performances given here of foreign operas are widely different from what the composers intended them to be ! Witness the complaints made in our Press by the composers and their relatives. In nearly every case this is s o , and these works not do draw enormous audiences in theirnativecountry ; inmanycasesthe composershaveneverheardtheiroperas at all, as in thecaseofRimsky-Korsakov, so my charge of snobbery, I think, for my own country is well maintained. The British people have ever listened to the alien, as in thedays of Handel, the and critic (although not a villain !) is always ready with his enthusiasm, in large type, for Tetrazzini,Caruso, Busoni, Strauss,Puccini, Nikisch, Campanini, Rooy, Van Stravinski, Chaliapine, Debussy, Pavlova, Karsavina,Nijinski, Mengelberg, Steinbach, Schönberg, Savonoff, Paderewski, Elman, and a few other aliens ! These are the ‘‘gods” I am mentioning, the gods of the British public. There arenot manyBritishnamesamongthem,itistrue, and I have not mentioned all the gods by any means, but it will befairlyseenwhatwehave to cope with, try and equal, and even surpass, before any serious advance can be reckoned probable for us. The suggestion-by me-might take the form of a little prejudice in our favour for a few years, first and foremost by our own Press, the most powerful in the world. Let it be said in every style of paper of our fine quality !-and this will help exceedingly. Inadditionwemightevengetthe con! fidence of our audiences,whichwehaveneverhad Such fine work as that o Elgar,Bantock,Vaughan f Williams, Cyril Scott, Rutland Boughton, Hawley, Beecham, Lyell Taylor, Basil Cameron,DanGodfrey, Vaughan Thomas, Havergal Brian, Benjamin Dale, to mention only a few, should not be ignored year year. after Our music festivals have no need to indulge in foreign novelties at all,ifthey werejustorgenerous. I have said all this before, and I shall be pleased to go on saya (merry?)fact to iningituntilmattersalter.Itis form my reading public that much of my best work is bought played, and which never would be the case, onlyIhave,in disgust,publisheditunder a foreign signature ! The recent performance .of my third music-drama,“Dylan,” called forthsomestirring remarks by the gentlemen who get their living by writing about work other men do (without this, I suppose, they would starve !) and in theirsummary of theworks brought forth by the Russian Season, or by the enthuhis son siasm of Sir Joseph Beecham and clever Thomas (who have given London some claim to a foremost placeinmusic matters by the new and modern worksperformed),theyspeak of nearlyeveryforeign all mention work individually, andcarefullyleaveout of the one British work included ! This, not in one paper but innearlyall,showsthat I do not exaggerate the sad situation o our music. Even f granting the that work was a poor one (which every critic here will naturally be keen to declare), this sort o bias gives a f reading public thecue to take,anddespitethe fine genius o our own native conductor, the most remarkable f perhaps we have in this country, Thomas Beecham (who conducts with a rare verve. and eye to effect, who reads the most complicated scores in existence with ease-as witnesshisreadings o all Straussand Delius,etc.), f the money spentandtheeffortmade fall on a desert air, and not one voice cries in the wilderness to remedy this in Old England, and I dare swear it is the same in America also. Perhaps since the powerful competition of Germany a has beenannulled,by thewar, we maynowprofit little from our Academies and public, but I would not like to rely on it, for the prejudice I have written about is very deeply embedded, and it is many, many years old. In a future article I shall talk a little of the German music,anditsencouragement, in its own country. I do not want to hear any of it at present here, and I notice with disgust it is still played here, but I cannot withhold my admiration for a country which encourages its own sons, and founds such a school of music which Germany at present possesses. Just recently, in a letter to the “Daily Telegraph,” I pointed out that German music might, at present, be given a rest. Two gentlemen rushed forward to give me the lie : Mr. Clutsam and Mr. “Algernon” ! The former has a German wife, 37 and, o course, other German pendants, and the latter f ! confesses to eighteen years’ German drilling in music These are the peoplewhom we are foolish enough to expect them to help British art ! ! I need not say my letter, on the above facts, was suppressed by the “Telegraph” authority on music ! ! It is a sporting country —Old England-for the aristocrats ! where. Heine was only safe in Paris, itself the last refuge of genius against the all-powerful flood of democracy. Twain was the voice of themassedand associated average man, both in the lighter and in the more profoundmatters of life and being. He had no esoteric truths,he did notstandabovehisneighbours. What they thought, he thought ; what they felt, he felt ; what theydoubted,hedoubted.Onlyhethought,feltand doubted a little more than they, being more sensitive, of and so he becametheirexpressor.Theproblems the average intellectual and sensitive man, set a t liberty to probeand to question,were his.Traditional belief hadlostits hold anditsinterpretation, hence Twain withothershad to think,thingsoutfor himself. His resultant thought is better expressed and more delicate than that of the average educated man of his day, but insubstanceitisthe same. Thus he was shocked at theincongruitybetweentheProtestant conception o f life,which hehad been taught, and the ordinaryexperience he shared his with fellow-citizens. “Think of a God of mercy who would create the typhus germ,’’ he said once, “or the housefly, or the centipede, or the rattlesnake, yet all these are His handiwork. They are a part of His infiniteplan. The ministeriscareful to explain that allthesetribulations are sent for a good purpose;buthehires a doctor to destroythe fever germ, and he kills the rattlesnake when he doesn’t run from it, and’ he sets papers with molasses on it for the housefly.” I t is the expression of the average practical man, loosenedfrom the prepared faith of dogma and tradition and pondering about deeper things. I t is anexpressionlightened by humour,thehumourthat would save and conciliate the inability to reconcile the profound mystery of God with annoyances that vex and threatentheeveryday life. Butthereis nowit, there is no evidence of mastery, but only of the need of conciliation. With a like seriousness Twain regarded the various scientifichypothesesuponeternity,andcloaked their distastefulness the for average with saving man the grace of humour. Thus he discussed the evolution theory,whichtransfersman’soriginfromthedivine totheamœba, with admirable humour. “You can’t makeanoysterout of nothing,”hesaid;“no, you got to start with a vast can’t do it in a day.You’ve variety of invertebrates, belemnites, tribolites, jebuso fry, and put them in f ites, amalekites, and that sort to soakin a primaryseaandobserveandwaitwhat will happen. Some of them will turn out a disappointment; the belemnitesandthejebusitesandsuch will befailures,andthey will dieoutand becomeextinct in the course of the nineteen million years covered by the experiment; but all is not lost, for the amalekites will develop gradually encrinites stalactites into and andblatherskites,andonethingandanother,asthe mighty ages creep on and the periods pile theirlofty crags in the primordial seas, and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the worldfor man stands completed ; the oyster is done.” “Was man, as he saw him, worth all this 99,970,000 years of gettingready?”wasTwain’squestion.The in the ordinary achievements of man as recorded Americandaily papersgave him theanswer.“When I read in the papersall about the rascalities and outrages going on I realise what a wretched creature the human animal is.” Judging by the achievement of the average man at liberty to work out his own will a s much as possible, Twain was convinced that the “99,970,000 years of getting ready” had been wasted. The failure of the massed average man in nobility or great achievement a was a profoundgrief to him, and hewaswithout measure of sympathyforgreat achievement. He had notthepoeticqualitythat intuitivelyappreciates the achievements. greatness of somemen’screationsand of this H e himself seemstohave beenpartlyaware deficiency. “ I know must it be low-grade music becauseit so delightedme,”washissadbuthonest confession. Heine and Mark Twain. By Dr, G. T Wrench. , WHEN article is written with the object of proving or an o f attempting to prove something, it is in the service clarity to set forth categorically and immediately that which is be to proven, The writer of the present article wishes to show that we laugh and rejoice, when someone or something adds to our sense o power, that f wit provokes the laughter of mastery and humour provokes the laughter of conciliation, when failure and not mastery is the occasion. To maintain such a thesisone would have to show that a wit in the supreme sensewould be one whowas a master of his time, whereas a humorist would be one overwhelmed by the difficulties of his time and attempting to conciliate them by the saving grace of humour. The greatest master of the actual forces and movements of England in the century last was also the greatest wit. H e was, without doubt, greatest the parliamentary wit, and it is very doubtful if any other English wit of the time could be shown to be his equal. to English But Disraeli’s intellect was confined mainly problems, and thereforecomparing wit in the and humour of Western civilisation oneisforced to look further afield. Heine at once singles himself out as the supreme type of wit of modern civilisation. N o one probably of the last century had aclearerintellect of wider rangethan he. In aposition of greaterpower doubtless he might have been a Europeanstatesman. But the division of Europe into separate nations made one o f thisimpossible.Consequently hismasterywas intellectualexpression. H e became a prophet and poet in the original Greek sense, the interpreter and the law giver creator. he not and But was taken seriously. Europe o the Nineteenth Century was infatuated f with ideaIs of democratic liberty. It was not an age looking to genius for interpretation and law-giving. It was the age of the massed and associated average man. Hence Heine, conscious thatEurope did nottakehimseriously,refused to appear wholly serious in theeyes of Europe, and he added to his armament wit. As Heinemayberegarded as thesupremewit of Western civilisation, so Mark Twain may be regarded as its chief humorist. Mark Twain was of all men onedeeplyimpressed by the difficulties and failures of this massed associated same and average man. He was essentially a sad man; indeed, reading Mr. Bigelow Paine’s excellent and affectionate biography of Twain, one comes to regard him as at bottom one of thesaddest of men. .He was a sensitive American, a member of theyoungest o the world’speoples, f one of racialmemory and of proven with theleaststock wisdom hardenedintotradition. Heine, on theother hand,was of therace whichin Europepossessesthe greateststock of racialmemory andprovenwisdom, €or Heine was a Jew. Hence, too, Mark Twain with all his health and success of worldly recognition and acclamationmakes a pathetic figure. Thesadness of his face is almost terrible to see evenin photographs. It is the face of one pondering upon, feeling and unable to master the vast problem of Western civilisation. Ontheotherhand,Heine,thoughstretched upon a couch o torture for ten years, upon his mattress-grave f as he called it, does not make a pathetic, but a powerful figure, for from his half-paralysed hand he launched truthsand wit which madeEuropeshudderandthe PrussianGovernmentbarricadethelandagainst him. was welcomed everyTwainwithhisburdenedheart 38 But without fuller self-knowledge he, of course, was unable to discoverin himself thereason of his grave .disappointment with man. As a faithfulrepresentative of a democratic age, h e levelled his upon eye the sovereign people. H e didnotattempt to lookhigher. And the result to him was disappointment. The quality and achievement of the massed average man depressed him. The modern man about him, nervous and struggling,struckhim as a failure,andwhathesawhe o man, for the current f regarded as the whole failure creeds of evolution and progress taught him that civilised man, failure though he might appear, was yet the highesthumanproduct of the ages. “Man adapted to the Earth?” he cried. “Why, the he’s poorest, clumsiestexcuse of allthecreaturesthatinhabitthis earth. H e h a s to be coddled and housed andswathed andbandagedandupholsteredto live at all. H e is a rickety sort of thing, any way you take him, a regular BritishMuseum of infirmities and inferiorities. H e is alwaysundergoingrepairs. A machine that is as unreliable as he is would havenomarket.”Man,then, .according to Twain’s sensitive heart, was a failure, the man whom he saw about him and active in the land of liberty and commercialism. “ W h a t a poor lot we human things are,” he often said. And with man a failure, life itself was also a failure. With the bitter sadness of a sensitive delicate and naturethatwasunable to masterthesecrets cl his time, Twain preferred death to life. “Adam, man’s benefactor,” he said, “he gave him all that he has ever received that was worth having-death. ” Based upon this pessimism, Mark Twain proved himself heroic. As he was the one who felt mostbitterly t h e failure in spiritual nobility and noble achievement of man, so he was the one to be most clever in covering it over with humour. Me made prodigious efforts to give this modern ineptitude humour. with He gave it a relativesense of power by deliberatelyinhis writings becoming yet more inept himself. As a clown, he took this ineptitude upon himself and made it laughable. H e made the massed average man laugh by presenting to him pictures of his own self in failure, and so gave the .average man a relative sense of power. There is something extraordinarily pathetic in the whole heroic effort. Overwhelmed by the folly and feebleness of man, left to ‘his own decrees and bereft of the guardianship of tradition and nobler natures, he attempted to flatter this folly t o a sense of power by exhibiting himself as yet more foolish. H e clowned beforethe inept. Heset himself up, as he did upon the Rigi in “The Tramp Abroad,” forthose“poorhumanbeings” to laugh at. He did thisagainandagaininhis books. It is the basis of his humour. Out of the pity of his most tender heart he out-stupided the stupid. most He the was most pathetic, the most tragic of attempted salvations viewed .philosophically, but it accounts for his popularity. Heine, in his part, was no less convinced than Twain of the failure of modern man in nobility and masterful ,artistry.ButHeinewasnot overwhelmedby his age. He was one of those terrible men of range and understanding,whoapproached,thoughhe did notattain to, the power o the Hebrew prophets. f He never attained to the absolute certainty of himself andhis mission as did a prophet of old. But,more than any man of his century, he stood above his time in the regions of universal understanding. H e apto thecertitude o supreme inf proachedmostnearly tuition. H e knew surely most the reason of man’s failure and the remedy and path that would lead once more to successand nobleachievement.Consequently h e never displayed the doubt of himself and the pessimistic despair which stamped Twain’s unhappy face. Neitherdidhedespair of the life that God gavenor doubt that nobility and greatness might yet be created from it. He didnot believe in its rejection either in part or as awhole. H e believed in its acceptance. H e did not believe in the rejection of matter and the body a s evil. “This evil,” he cried, “is but a false conception of the spiritualists ; it is a feature of their arrangement of this world’s affairs. They would make matter itself an evil thing, which would be a blasphemy against God.” Thecourse of history,theclash of religions, the rise of philosophies,. the growth of science, all were lucid to his. eyes. Inhiswonderfulessay,written in 1834, upon the Religion andPhilosophy inGermany, a powerthatnostudent he showed established and o Protestantism f and dares neglect. His summaries Catholicism and his picture o the Reformation are alike f invaluable. He based his history upon the eternal conflict of men’s natures. “In all ages,” he wrote, “there aresome menunable to enjoy to the full, menwith blunted senses timorous and physique, who find all grapessour in thisgarden of God, whoseeinevery apple of paradise the seductive serpent, who find their victoriesindenialandinsufferingtheir joy. Onthe other hand, we find inall ages men of robust nature, filled with the pride of life, who bear themselves right manfully, who find welcome in the roses and the stars, o nightingales Rossini’s f and delight song in the melodies and the rich coloured flesh of Titian’s pictures, and who reply to their hypocritical companions who find suchthings a torment, in the words of Shakespeare’s character, ‘ Dost thou think because thou art virtuous ” The ascenthere shall be no more cakes and ale?’ dancy of those of “timorous physique” in the world’s values,andtheconsequentgrowthandpredominance of the culture and employments that do not primarily dependupon and enhance the grace and health of the body-for example, the exclusiveculture of the brain or the multiplication of employments which relegate attention to the bodily culture to a single afternoon in the week-were to him the cause of the failure of man, whom Twain found to be “a regularBritishMuseum of infirmities and inferiorities.” “Thething of chief importance” (to present humanity), he wrote in a conclusive summary, “is its restoration to health, for we stillfeelweakinallourmembers. The holy vampires of the Middle Ages have sucked so much life-blood from us.” Finally, as if to give a proof to the vision of his a pro-’ divine genius,heendedthegreatessaywith phecy. Let France armed watchful, said, be and he for Kant, from Fichte philosophers and of Nature, Germans will gather a power more dangerous to France than all theHoly Alliance withitsCroatsand. Cossacks;the prophecyignored by theFrench,amongst whom he lived, and so tragically fulfilled in 1870-1871. Whereas,then,Twain claimed for himself superlatives in negativism, in despair at the modern man and in attemptedsalvation by thebuffoonery of humour, Heineinterpreted,prophesied,showedthepathwayto a masterful salvation, and made governments even tremble the with blasts of his truth. Under his pen the constricted modern world seemed to expand to the vastrangeofpaganhumanity.Hisworkswere pronounced by contemporaries the most brilliant, the most witty, most the entertaining, most the immoral, the mostdangerous,themostrevolutionarywritten.His poetry was the most lyrical and the most delicate, his prose at once themostexquisite,themostprofound, the most coarse. As master, he included within himself phases of life and character which modern Europe scarcely knew outside Goethe and Shakespeare, and which leapt back over the centuries to find their mates amongst the classics. His love was as great. No man everwrotemorelovinglettersto a wifeordisplayed a more loving care of a mother, “the old woman at the Dammthor,” than did maintaining Heine, in his monthly letters to her during the ten yearsof paralysed martyrdom in Paris the illusion of prosperity and joyful healthforhersake. “Thus sheishappy,”hesaidto Meissner; “for truly no mother would believe her son to be sick and tortured as I am.”Nothing more apSo it pealingthanthisis recordedin humanhistory. cameaboutthatthereseemednoactiveand positive human quality-except in latter his years, of that health-whether of love or hate or understanding that Heine lacked, He was in his prime a man fully armed if ever man was to be a master of life. 39 Then what better contrast of the means o f provoking laughtercanonehavethanHeine’switand Twain’s humour? And to aid purposes the of comparison they have both written books on travel which bear a superficialresemblance, “The Harz Tour” and “TheTramp Abroad.” Ineachbookthereisan account o f theascent of a famousmountain to which tourists flock to enjoy the heights the and sunrise. Heine visited theBrocken,TwaintheRigi,andboth provoke laughterwiththeiraccounts.That of Twain admirable is humour and our flatters sense of superiority by theexhibition of folly greaterthanwe could ourselves commit. T h e cleverness which with Twain tells his tale and our recognition of this cleverness saves the folly from being irritating, he and changes itintopleasinghumour.Twain, asischaracteristic of humour,wrote chiefly of himself and his friend. He told storiesagainst himself, he buffooned and clowned forour benefit. H e extended boy’s the sense of humour who roars at the misadventures which overtake Ally Sloper, the or girl’s sense of humour who tells “thefunniestthing you ever heard about Sally, who, of course, missed the proper train and lost her luggage,andthenwenttothewronghouse,just like Sally.” H e exhibited,inshort,thehumourthat saves incapacity andgivesitsome conceitwith itself by presenting it with greater incapacity. It is the consolation a short man receives in the presence of a dwarf. His skill in this art was extraordinary. Co. upon the Sally misses the train, but Twain and Rigi missed everything, every purpose went astray. The average ascends Rigi man the in three hours, ‘Twain took three days. When the time came for Twain to see thesunriseit so happened that hebecame the sight, and not the sunrise. The whole crowd of people laughed a t him ; whilst wrapt in a blanket he mistook sunset forsunrise. The next morning the same topsyturvydom prevailed. H e mistook t h e e s t , for the W East. Finally,hecame downfrom theRigi a failure, without fulfilling the easiest of purposes. The very contrary to this was Heine’s account of his ascent of the Brocken. There is not to be found in all his tale a story against himself. He was not the central interest because he was below others,butbecausehe was above all others in his book, He was not a clown, but ajudge. H e didnotusehisimagination to paint impossible pictures of hisownfolly,but to illuminate the human material with which he met in the course of his journey. The account of the eveningspent at the Brockenhaus, wheregoodfare,good wine and good company loosened reserve and showed up the fact and foible of each character, is a marvellous piece of writing. Withthe divine spirit of genius Heine himself seemed to flit amongst the guests and place his ear at the door of their hearts. His wit and irony played upon the scene like the lightning about the Brocken. It had the lightning’s daintiness and the lightning’s power. How exquisite was his method of tuning up the brains of theyoungBurschenschaftenfrom Berlin, andthe witty .description of the Greifswald man‘‘wholooked like a life-size fool.” What satireclothedthesentimental youths who in the wardrobe saluted the wonders o the night. f Above how all, wittywastherevenge f upon the young merchant who, unconscious o his roommate’s race, sneered upon the Jews. “The desire seized me to mystify ‘him, so I told him that I had a habit of walking in my sleep,andbegged him toexcuseme beforehand should I chance ta disturb him by my wanderings. ’’ Heinethen laidhispistols by hisbedside and slept. The merchant the young spentnight anxiously peering through the dusk at both pistols and sleeper. Onethinks by contrast of Twain’shumorous midnight, “pawinground,” at Heilbronn. How positive, how vital,too,wereHeine’saccounts of youth and Nature ! The weary Twain dragged himself up the Rigi, exasperated by commercial jodelling, as bored as the most blasé o modern folk. H e affected to be more f -exhausted thanmost the dutiful of tourists. But Heine and comrades revelled in their youths, in the keen mountainairandthesunnyexultationofthenature aboutthem.Thepoet’simaginationglowedwiththe lovely picturesandbrokeforthintolyrics, whilstthe song-birds trilled a lusty accompaniment. It was a magnificent pagan approvaland with of unity the world, the very opposite to weariness and incompetence cloaked in humour. And it ended with one of the finest shafts of symbolic wit that Europe has in its treasury. The glory of the mountain, upon whose peak Heine stood beside the iron cross that crowned it, and the fair beauty of the River Ilse, these lovely gifts of an earthly world intoxicated the poet. ‘‘For as I stood there, lost buriedmusic of the in thought, I suddenlyheardthe castle of enchantment, and I saw the mountains round me standing ontheirheads,andthe red-tiled roofs of Ilsenburg begin to dance, and all turn to blue and green about me, so that I should surely have fallen over the precipiceinmygiddiness had I not in my soul’s need clungtotheironcross.That I did this in my unfortunate situation will, I trust, not be misconstrued.” Thus does one see the master by wit and satire expose those who would turnthis world anditsgifts topsy-turvy, those turn the who from abundance o f healthy joy that might be theirs didthey but hearken to interpretations the of genius, those ignore who suffer genius, even as theFrenchignoredHeine,and intolerable humiliations. Who n ca deny that, if genius accepted were as prophet interpreter, and as his words last : Twain would nothavetowrite “Death--theonlyearthly dignitythatisnot artificial -the only safe one. The others traps are that can beguile to humiliation” ? But Western civilisation ignores its genius, banishes or evensucceeds in driving it to islands or mountains it insane. And as substitute, the it increasing has mechanisation of life to endure. Machines and men regulating their hours and minutes with mechanical precision are dominant of our time. Even its laughter M. Bergsonwouldnow confine to a bare apologyfor saving grace to excuse the the mechanical, a bare ubiquitous intrusion of the mechanical i n t o the living. Masterly means of arousinglaughterthatstingand goad men to efficiency and sweep away the miasmas of humbugandineptitude,wit,irony,andsatireare all banished fromour midst. We have only humourthat glozes over and even makes a cult of inefficiency. Perchance before long we shall hear that it has usurped the f attribute o wit itself, and become the “divine humour.” I t will find its field in this world by excusing, everything and all. “Have you made your peace with God ? ” asked a friend of thedying Heine. The questiondrewforth Heine’s last words : “DO notdistressyourself,” he said, “Dieu me pardonnera, c’est son métier.” Such,too,istheprovince of humour.Butthegod of wit is stern towards men: his name is Jealous, and he will forgive none that go awhoring after other gods. VILLANELLE. (To all those poets who have a t last succeeded in getting their verses published). It doth require but little skillAs the new reams of verse attestTo call the Kaiser,“Kaiser Bill.” So ply your vitriolic quill, And dub him “hog” and “boor” and “pest”— It doth require but little skill. For if you would your coffers fill, Just set to work and do your best To call the Kaiser,“Kaiser Bill.” To make your readers throb and thrill With sanguinary curse and jest-It doth require but little skill. Administer the obvious “pill, ’’ Or kickhisnetherpartswith zest-And call the Kaiser,“Kaiser Bill.” It won’t be poetry-but still I’d name him “sausage”—like the restIt doth require. but little skill To call the Kaiser, “Raiser Bill.” THEODORE MAYNARD. 40 Drama. By John Francis Hope. DRAMA? I hadforgotthat name,andthatname’s woe.” It had become so apparent me the to that theatre was the last place in which to discover drama that I had developed the habit of dozing through a play once a fortnight, and filling my belly with the husks of “ my own humour. When I heard that Mr. Herman Sheffauer written had a play called “ The New Shylock,” which was called “ a comedy of New York ghetto life,” and was produced at the Lyric Theatre, I wentprepared for the last long sleep. “ Zangwill,” I thought. “Jew Old v. modern Melting-pot, life. sentimental slush, and the preaching of political or You knowthesort of thing-the mysticalZionism.” Jew genius with a fiddle, a mission, a mission-hall, and a woman. “ Anounce of morphia, good apothecary,” was all that I demanded a s aprophylactic. The unexpectedhappened; I did not go t o sleep, and now what am I to do? I cannotmakejokesabout a play that provides an opportunity for the only piece of good acting that I have seen for years. Unless I can pour coals of fire on the head of Mr. Sheffauer, my occupation’s gone; and coals are verydear.Still, I ask Mr. Sheffauer to ‘borrow and wear a fireman’s helmet before he reads this article. How many times Mr. Sheffauer has seen his play performed, I do not know; but I suggest he that should be educated compulsorily in witnessing the performance. For a week, at least,heought to be led into the auditorium and compelled to sit through only the second act. At the end of that time, he will probably come to the conclusion that the man who wrote the second half o that act ought to be kicked for having f written the first half, and he will g o out and kick himself. Having done he that, will, I hope, have sense enough to cut the first half of the act. The reason for these brutal suggestions is this, that Mr. Sheffauer has written the second half o the second act as a dramatist. f The scene acts itself; and Mr. Louis Calvert and Miss Madge Titheradge play it with a power that will make the scene memorable. Sheffauer Mr. has only not created two characters, he has, in this scene, brought them into dramatic relations with each other ; the scene is Shakespearean, and the actors play it as though they were grateful for having, at last, something to do. I t is impossible to over-praise this scene or the acting of it ; and to save myself from the snare of hyperbole, I turn from it to other considerations. For how does Mr. Sheffauer lead up to this wonderfulscene?Theactopens with a scenein the pawnA “knut” comes broker’s shop during business hours. in to pawn a tie-pin; wants he twenty dollars, the pawnbrokergiveshimthreeand a half dollars for it. To hell with him ! Then the Christian lover of the Jew pawnbroker’sdaughterenters,andmakes love to her over the counter ; being interrupted by the pawnbroker, hebuys a Turkish sword that hedoesn’t want,and departs after making an assignation with the girl. To hell withhim ! Then a littlegirlenters to pawnher mother’sweddingdress;themotherisdying of consumption, the wedding dress is valueless, but the Jew pawnbroker sends her five dollars for it, and a message to the effect that she can have the dress whenever she wants it-it will be needed soon, he tells his daughter, to bury her in. T o hell with her ! Then, having demonstrated his business capacity and his charity, he closes the shop; and for a time which seems interminable, the stage is empty and in darkness. Let Mr. Sheffauerseethisfromthefront,and if he does not feel like a man going upstairs in the dark and putting his foot on a step that isn’tthere,then I’m a playwright ! The fact that Mr. Sheffauer has to employ the undramatic device of an interval of silence and darknessought to convincehimthatthereis something wrong with the construction of the act. It is this ; Mr. Herman Sheffauer wants the audience to knowthattheJewcanbargain,andcanalso be charitable; he thinks that the audience must see some cuddling, and will alsoappreciatethetouch of local colour implied by theappearance o thesethree unf necessary characters. H e is wrong ; the audience wants toseethesecond,notthefirst,part of thisact. Mr. Sheffauer, literary man, must not be called in to pad a play written by Mr. Sheffauer, dramatist. Besides, there was really no break in the action. W e knew a fromthe first actthat Rebecca was in with love Christian,andmethimclandestinely;weknewthat her brother was in financial difficulties, which he would not explain the to father. The conflict was already staged;thecharactershadtakenuptheirpositions, the action was in progress, and all that was needed was to go straight on with it. Dramatically, we do not need to see the lover until the third act, when he defies his own father and interposes between Rebecca and the authority of her father; and really the love-scene in the pawnshop is not o such merit that its creation can f be allowed to over-ride considerations o drama. f The firstscene of thesecondactisbadliterature,andis not drama ; and must be cut. The process of education in drama by witnessing his own success in this a r t will set Mr. Sheffauer revising hisfirstact.Therearefaults of speecharisingfrom Mr. Sheffauer’s literary predilections must that be corrected ; SimonEhrlich,forexample,mustnotbe sentfishingfor a simile forhis first wife’s depth of character, and be furnished with the cliché, “ as deep as the AtlanticOcean.” If I had a copy o theplay, f I could point out severalsuchdefects, usually due to Mr.Sheffauer’sattempts to makehischaracterstalk prosepoetry. Hemustcutthemout; hischaracters do not talk like this so soon as they have something to do. And thereought to besomeless clumsyway o f openingthe play thansettingSarahEhrlichreading aloud “ The Merchant of Venice ” in an empty room ; and her subsequent reading of passages of the play t o her husband is really a banal device. W e d o n o t need these literary references in a play that, on the whole, has got itself resolved intocharacter,situation,and .of thisintrusion of dramatic speech ; andtheeffect literary device isthat Mr.Sheffauer has to attribute psychologicallyunnecessaryqualities tohischaracter. There is .na reason why Simon Ehrlich should have been ignorant of the fact that Shakespeare wrote ‘‘ T h e Merchant of Venice ” except that Mr.Sheffauerwas clumsyin opening his subject. I believe thatthesedefectsaremainlydue to Mr. Sheffauer’s selection of a title, which is another merely literary reference. Had he called his play “The EverlastingJew,” which is a moretrulydescriptivetitle than “The New Shylock,” these faults would probably not have been committed, or would have been corrected. But apart from these defects, which are confined to the first act and the first half of the second act, Mr. Sheffauer is to be congratulated. He is not as well served by the actors as he might be ; Sarah Ehrlich is not the lay figure that Miss Edyth Olive makes of her, and the best ‘thing that Mr. Otto Alexander did as Sam Ehrlich was to walk out quickly in the second act, and not to return. Mr. Sheffauer ought to tell Miss Titheradge that anaemia of so extreme a degree as that suggested by the colour of her face is not compatiblewithany to use a degreeof physical .activity,andadviseher little 2½. The “Knut” the girl and little appeared owe, but once too often ; they were not only unnecessary, as I have said, but they played their parts badly. If Mr. Sheffauer is the dramatist that the last two and a half show, acts he will feel the need of rescuing Sarah from the deadlyembrace of MissEdythOlive,, and will incontinently discharge the “Knut” and Nitty New pulled together Nellie. Then “ The Shylock,” andadequatelyacted in allitsparts,shouldrunfor ever—or, at least,untilMr.Faraday’stenancy of the theatre expires. 41 Readers and Writers. MESSRS. BELL havesentmetwenty newvolumes of their reprint of Bohn’s classics (IS. each), every one of which would be welcome though I had read it before. Lessing, Coleridge, Schopenhauer, Plutarch, Poe, More, Keats, Walpole, Smollett, Fielding still and others-when should I ever tire of them? While so many of my youngerfriendsareatthefront I have thought it not my duty to grow slack at my own peaceful task of reading. I have therefore contrived to rise a couple of hours earlier every morning in order to earn my right to read the newspapers and to share in our national pride. The newBohns, I find, are very convenient for my purpose. It is true that of themall I have already on my shelves one or more editions ; but the fresh ink and paper and the pleasant format make them seem almost newworks. And upon my word, I could wish they were, so jealous am I for the honour of the age in which you live ! begin on this question to pour forth decrees o fate with f more sanctity and much more certainty than the Pythia who out the and speaks tripod from laurel of Phoebus. . .” Sciencestill lyrical, yet below Prophecy, as Munro knew. *** * * * The “Select Letters of Horace Walpole,” numbering in thiseditionsometwohundred,took me far longer toread thanittookWalpole to read“Chesterfield’s Letters.” H e polished off a hundred forty and in a single evening, he tells us, thoughhehad to sit up until two to do it. ButWalpoleputsome work into his letters and lived indeed to write them. His “Lives” andhis“Castle of Otranto”arenothingby the side o the four thousand odd letters he hammered f in jest,perhaps,thathesaidthey out. It was only would outlast the memory o battles and heroes ; but, f had he said it seriously, itwould have been equally true. Not onlydid he live towriteletters,buthewas so fortunate as to be of a mood andcharacterand in a position and amid circumstances peculiarly favourable to the art. H e was a consummate gossip-that is, mischievous without malice;read best he the models and laboured tosurpassthem;he moved in a society of notables of onesortandanother;andhe cultivated his talentsforintimatefriendship. No wonder,then, thatin theresulthislettersrankwiththebestever written and published. I find, too, rather to my surprise, that he was a better man than we usually take a heartless mughim for. H e passes nowadays for wump whosneered atthetrade ofpolitics to which he owed his lifepension. Butonthree ,occasions, a t least, heriskedhis pension tospeakhis mind ; and nobody should forget that he passionately (so f a r as a n Epistle could convey passion} opposed the King’s policy towards America. His politicalcreed, I imagine,was summed up .in thissentencethatmight well, with a change o a few proper names, serve THENEW AGE at f this moment : “My first object in politics is to demolish the French marine. My Whig blood cannotbearto part with a drop of the empire of the Ocean. Like the Romans, I would have Rome domineer over the world and be free at home.” Free at home,powerfuland honoured abroad ! ! Let us layupon Walpole’s grave the sprig of rosemary which was the remembrance he asked for. The new StandardEdition of Meredith (Constable, 6s.) continues to appear two bytwo, and eachmonth I havethereforetheinducement (for it is a seductive edition) and the opportunity to repent my judgment of this author. though But thus influenced, and also urged to repentance by several correspondents who do me the honour of being distressed by my attitude, my mind refuses to budge. There is something,. shall I call it Welsh? something Owen Glendowerish-in Meredith’s style that produces the same effect upon me that the spriteliness o Glendower f produced in Henry. It isnotonlynotEnglish,butitisanti-pathetic to the English character. Walpole Friend remarked that “onecannot buffoon likeLucian when onewantsto speak daggers like Tacitus” ; yet Meredith was always temptedtoitandwasperpetuallyfalling. I open, for example,the first chapter of “Beauchamp’sCareer ” and come upon a description o much the same state of f public excitement a s prevails to-day. Here is a fair sample of it : “ I t was thedeliberatesaddling of our ancient nightmare of Invasion, putting the postillion on her, and trotting her along the highroad with a winding horn to rouse old Panic.’’ W h a t a long drawn out pastiche and how utterly inappropriate to the subjecta catastrophe in WardourStreet ! And nobody can deny that itispure Meredith.Occasionally,it is true, Meredith writes like less a babu and like more an Englishman. Killick’s wordstoDr.Shrapnel conveyingthenews of the drowning of Beauchamp, for example, I find almost perfect. “ Hard ” would be better than “ sharp ” - b u t there you are,the choice was again Meredith. No, on the whole, I do notbegin to repent. + * ” And if I were to begin, thesight of MissRebecca West’s style would surely undo me again. A confused. feeding uponMeredithin the firstinstanceand upon the writings of Mr. H. G. Wells in the secondary stages,. has left this young writer in a positive rash of’ mixed metaphors and images. Of some book whose title I never even looked at, Miss West recently wrote in the “Daily News’’ (that incubator of wildfowl) that it was “bright with the hard polish that one gets in the very bestdetectivestories,logicalliketheworks of Euclid and suave the with large imperturbable and manner derived from Dumas.” . . . Buttheauthor has “lodged a moral purpose in the gullet o his surf prised story,” which, thereafter, naturally enough, . Yet he “writes well “chokes” and worse. in that ramshackle style that runs like a tinker’s cart through a village street.” Like Meredith Miss.. West thinks with herfancy ; like Mr.VVells she chatters with her pen. .. ... * * * * * * Bohn’s “Lucretius ” contains not only the unsurpassable translation Munro, by butsomeaccount of the to deride classic the great scholar. Nietzsche used scholars whowereclassic in nothingbuttheir philology; but Munro, I think, would have pleased him. We are told that old Dr. Arnold would never g o near the village where Livy was born, he had such a party hatred of the writer. But Munro carried verisimilitude even further, he lowered his voice when speaking o the f times of Tiberius lest the Emperor’s spies might hear him. Thus nearbyimagination in timetoLucretius he was also near him in spirit, for like his author he had a passion for the knowledge of what is, and a calm hatred for superstition. all Listen to his union with Lucretius in this noble translation : “But before I shall Mr. Wells has written a new Preface for the shilling. edition of his “ Mankind the in Making.” I forgot what I said of the bookwhen it firstappeared,butI remember that I thought of it then what Mr. Wells i s so successful as to be able to say o it to-day-to t h e f confusion, by the ‘way, if they had any shame, of the “ uncritics who admired it. The book, hesays,is shapely, irregular and in places very shallow, hasty and ill-written.” But save unfortunate who, the curate himself,would be at thepains to pick out the good parts of the Bishop’s egg? Why, in short, doesMr. Wells confess only to “ in places ” ? “ New Worlds for Old ” has also now appeared in a shilling edition (Constable), but without a preface, as if the former might do for both, as it may. “ You will not,under Socialism, see Sarah Bernhardt playing in a tent as she had to do in America.” . . . ‘‘Sothat you see Socialism will 42 touch nothing living of religion”. such bubbly Utopianism. *** . . and lots more of The publishers of the translation English of Nietzsche mustbehopingthatthecontroversy concerninghisshareinthewar will continue!, for, when they have written about him, lour journalists will probablybegin to read him.Mr. Stephen Graham (whose articles I read always with respect) courageously claims Nietzsche a s at least as greatan influenceupon our ally Russia as upon our enemyGermany.“Almostall the noble spirits of modernRussia,”hesays, “have drunk deep o the wells o Nietzsche.”Contrastthis f f statementwiththearticle onNietzschebyProfessor T. M. Kettle in “T.P.’s Journal.” Nietzsche’s doctrine of the Will-to-Power, perhaps nearest the Western approach to the intellectual formulation of one of the aspects o the mystical Trinity, Professor Kettle f calls “a centre of corruption, a long drawn out Metaphysic of Bullying,nothing less andnothingmore.” But even if it were so, Professor Kettle would not have discovered it; and since it is not, he must have found it in the “Evening News” or some other authority. R. H. C. Impressions of Paris. WE look on while Germany’spower‘isbeing slowly, slowly broken. It is a thing that a strong spirit would sooner haveto do thantosee done. Ours who come f with a full through off the field speak o the enemy salute.little A laughing, chattering Belgian almost waved wounded his arm with excitement. ‘“agnificent !” he kept saying, and then with a laugh again“Next to us-magnificent !” To uswaitingallthese daysthebattlehasseemedlikethateternalpause at full contact between the irresistiblethe and impenetrable. These hurled masses of Germans that came up after the battle of the Aisne appeared miraculous in numbers. Some god seemed busy refabricating the men as often a s they were destroyed. Alas ! for them, they are not scatheless phantoms. And in mass the they are “magnificent.” W e shall forget about individual “ atrocities’’when itcomes to reckoningbattles.One hears of English officers who wept when the slaughter was over on the coast and river, where those thousands lay all still after their wild self-sacrifice. W e feeble, in whom the detail of a mutilated one of ours excited the hate of horror, realise that we had better not voice our partial comments. W e a r e likely still to be found alternately hating and admiring this enemy. Some kind people have sent me money to distribute among the poor and the wounded. The matter of giving tothe wounded simple. is One buys goods, delivers themandgets a receipt. Everythingis nice andformal. Buttheotherisvery complicated. First,inselfdefence, you have to inculcate the truth that it isn’t you who giving is the money. The least desirable false charactertohaveatthis moment is one o riches, f especially if you happen toberather feeble-minded. Then you have positively to refuse gifts in return from certain beneficiaries, while from others you must reject helping. As itisn’tyourown petitions for a second money, you take hours deciding on cases which before were clear as daylight. You wonder whether your personal preferences are not coming into play more than they ought, and it is a miracle if youdon’t turn absurdly English and leave your friends in the lurch just becausethey are yourfriends. I talkedwith a Commissaire about gifts. “Put whatever you have to give in the hand,” he advised me. “You may make a mistake now and again, but an organisation is certain to waste half its receipts.” I compromise by buying goods for societies where one cansee the distribution as at the stations. It makes one falsely feel guilty of pernicketiness,but,afterall,themainthingistobesure you achieve your object. I don’t think I have thrown away more than twenty francs all told since the beginning of the war. This is not to say I haven’t assisted persons to go on living whose existence is certainly a blunder o n the part of the Creator; but that’s no concern of mine. It is weirdhow one can support apparently worthless people if they are only helpless enough ! The “Saturday Review” arrives with a poem by Mr. the William Watson. I quote a ‘verse or so, though work is probably well known by this time :THE MEN WHO MAN. The men who man our batteries, The men who serve our guns, They need not honeyed flatteries, For they are Britain’s sons. They go, when Duty speeds them, Wherever bullets fly ; Wherever England needs them, When Duty bids, they die. Our cheery sailors lapt in The maiden sea’s light sleep, From commodore and captain To all who man the deep, They around hear their bed nought But echoes of their fame, And well they man the Dreadnought Who dread not aught but shame. We have seen that the pursuit of even a wicked ideal, as that of Prussianism, commands respect if the idealists really prove heroic conduct. in Mr. Watson is clearly resolved to prove thatbrutaldoggerelcan standup to our BritishPatrioticPoems. H e h a s not done so badly, and I respect his courage as also that of the “Saturday Review.” And yet, heroic rhymster, punster and almost incomparable ass as he must be admitted,hasheabsolutelydevoted himself andthrown the last remnant of good sense and taste into the field as it were? His captain lapt in the maiden sea’s sleep, a fine challenge to our oldetc., is, as far as it goes, : fashioned“Mariners of England”-listen Britannia needs no bulwarks, No towers along the steep ; Her march is o’er themountain waves, Her home is on the deep. With thunders from her native oak She quells the floods below, As they roar upon the shore, When the stormy winds do blow, When the battle rages loud and long And the stormy winds do blow. And Mr. Watson, in anotherverseandafteranother pun as cultured a s a Junker, has managed entirely to shout down Campbell’s metaphorical “quells the floods”:The men whose joy is manning The men who manthe world ! Our allies will no doubt admit this Imperial pronouncement and all will be simple. And yet, I say, Mr. Watson mighthavedonebetter.Evenhissubject selected is o allpossible. f Our sailors not quite the most stirring of a German cannot boast the popularity, for instance, Watson some scraps of hintsas to spy ! IofferMr. where to “grub” for his next success. THE MENU-MAN : OR THE GERMAN WAITER. Begin : The menu-man at Gatti’s, Theman who servesourbuns. ... Potatoes and Huns would rhyme nicely here : and one couldmention that whereverEngland feeds, Deutschland speeds theGermanwaiter,theSpy you see.Tie would rhyme with spy-you could have Fritz disguised in his black tie or something o that appropriate kind. f The rest would be no trouble but simply letting go. Our cheery sailors see nought Behind their chairs (cheers !). But He Has “wired” them who free fought Chary ( ! !) o nought a t sea ! ! ! f W(h)ir(l)e our officers talk, Fritz listens, neatly attaches them to their seats, and promptly goes off to wireless to Berlin. Conclude with a general warning to the Army and Navy that the Menu-man is deep, get in “sleep” 43 somehow, and Wake thus up England ! might be timely compliment to King dragged in as a little George. I am afraid that the Parisians are beginning to study London. The “Journal des Débats” prints a resumé of a word o f comthe Revue at the Empire, and without ment. I t looks like deliberate cruelty, but for my part I don’t doubt that the journal was at a loss what to say. One is not sure oneself whether the British Public is as stupid as the directors of its theatres and music-halls. wholly among The banality of theFrenchisalmost their religious population, and the “Débats,” in one of its little articles, is not at all dumb-struck on the subject of the picture post-cards of the pious. The favourite of these cards depicts Christ rejecting the German Emperor-this thing strikes the eye on all the boulevards, a symbol of the power of Christianity versus Christ. Of course, “Débats” the does say not this, being,I believe, mildly orthodox, a t leastinparts. It says : “The sketch-artists are wonderful for taking by of personages seemed who surprise the intimacy guaranteedagainsttheirindiscretion.” I t foresees as possible that, a hundred years hence, the subtly refined may discoversomecharm in these“detestabledrawings.’’ Possibly ! There is still joy to the pious spirit in contemplating Fra Angelico’s picture of Beelzebub To be“sousingthedamned” in a blazingcauldron. come thoroughlypurged of “religion”surelynothing can be more efficacious than sojourn in a Catholic area o Frof duringthiswar. Ineverdid takeanystock testants, but had a sentimental notion that Catholics a t least were dignified. I find among them a banality differing from Protestant the kind in being usually savageratherthanmaudlin,whereas we haveitthe other way round. I’m very well up in journalism, week, this having donenothingmuchbut sneeze andread.The life of Parisisknown to me only from my windows. I hear the indefatigable lady who beats her carpet every morning and the other neighbours who shake their dust into thewindows below, the which ispermittedhere.The a lesson to landlords for spoiledchild, whomustbe miles round, screams its regular half hour, the friendly aeroplane whuzzles above, and the milk sets itself down outsidethedoorwiththenewspapers. I seethatthe degradedmanwho photographs imprisonedGermans against their will is still busy, and I wonder if this sort of thing is happening to ours across the border? The sameindividualis still standingby, coldly snapping, while our wounded drag each other from falling houses. Harmsworth is lying as hysterically as ever about the ; German armybeing mainly greybeardsandcripples the Parisians are very cross about this canard, which, of course, lowers our fighting dignity considerably. M. Clemenceauinhis “L’Homme Enchaîne,” with which ‘he has replaced the censored ‘‘L’Homme Libre,” melts forthtwowonderfulcolumns of Entente Cordiale. M. Gustave Hervé asks still for more and more reinforcements, and M. CharlesBenoist,membredel’Institut, depute de Paris, supplies the Catholic matutinal choice morsel to the “Echo”--“The rope, perhaps, is good for o war. As forthose intime of peace, f spiesintime double cowards, Dante has condemned them to the torment of theprince o traitors,JudasIscariot,whose f head Lucifer grinds eternally ‘between one of his three pitilessjaws.’’ Insuch a caseonemight as well be Iscariot, n’est-ce pas?HeadsgrindedandthePrince of Mercy-Dante ! what a mess. The cafés, nowfull of youngstudents,laugh con” who siderably “Malheureux about Maeterlinck couldn’t find his way to interesting Belgium, but who, according to the comic papers, is finding his way to the very front of Belgian interests ininnocentAngleterre. Of course, if the man had simply fled and said nothing, f peoplewould have made neither more nor less o him it is, he should be wary than of any other refugee. As of again offering to boxCarpentierany more-public opinion might induce Carpentier to accept ! To-day, Sunday, Paris forgets everything else but the Fête de La Toussaint, Fête the of the Dead. The whole population obtained flowers to place in the cemeteries. I t was fine, cold, sunnyweather,and everyone a bouquet or a who could crawl abroad went out with at five wreath. My womanwasdown atthemarket o’clock to get ours, and by six there remained scarcely a sou bunch of violets. I went to see the flowers in the f huge cemetery o Montparnasse, just round the corner. The boulevard was packed with people buying and selling flowers, and the crowd almost carried one along. Inside,hundreds of theordinarily pretentious-looking tombs-a dismal horror, this cemetery !-were already hidden under fresh flowers. But I got out as soon as I could. Peoplewerecryingbeside new graves and one was simply intruding.Therewere soldiers and many women in mourning,onegroup of four,withheartbrokenfaces,whiteand listless. Out onthecarriageway the irrepressible absurd walked along, chattering‘‘ Very aristocratic. I counted twenty-five wreaths.’’ My woman, who went to Bagneux, said that the graves ofGermanstherewere covered with flowers like the rest. f gone A packet o my notes has certainly astray, though the post “marches” miraculously o n the whole. The end of my adventure with the Breton woman was, I think, happy for all parties-; she received an offer of free passage to her native town where sheis well known to “the Sisters,” and so we parted. Whatever should I have done with her, sweet as she was? I am still in my studio over the red tiles. The baker told me that a womanIsawlying on a tomb in the cemetery has to be taken forcibly from this grave every morning. is She set upon dying there, beside her husband, who fell during those awful days of late August. Many people are still without any tidings of theirswhodisappeared at that time. The research columns are half composed of appeals for news of that date. And now Turkey is going to mix up in it all ! W h a t a littlehelltheMediterranean will become. The poor rich will be a t theirwits’endfor a sanatorium,blast them ! Goodness, the tales one hears here of Fat having packed its cellars with potatoes and sugar and all sorts of things that have since gone up inprice,and then fled afterall to Bordeaux,Biarritz, MonteCarlo and Rome, leaving the things to rot, or as good ,as. I went the other day to buy IO lbs. of sugar and 4 lbs of coffee for a canteen which is open for tired and wounded an soldiers. I had taken precaution get not the to official noteandwasrefusedtheprecioussugar until I hadtrampedallthe waybackandreturnedarmed will not nowsellyou morethan with a seal.Grocers one pound of sugar at a time, and, even so, you must buy other articles in order to procure it ! Of course it’s simply tyranny, and at the beginning of things, before half the women were broken-hearted, these grocers would have been mobbed. But the grocers (the French use the term “grocer” for everything base !) are strong in Paris now. Therewere five Belgiansoldiers in the shop, and a little French boy fell in a terrific rage at sight of theirstrangeuniforms,denouncingthemas “Germans!” Betweensuspicionandshame a t being mistaken, he could not be induced to make friends with comthem. Thehunt downof GermanandAustrian mercialsherehasresulted inseveral suicides. To-day a Germanpublisher,naturalisedheretwoyearsago, shot himself in the Rue Vaugirard, having nothing to hope from for either side. Perhaps he should have stuck to Germany ; but, really,many “Parisian” Germansmustbealmostbroken-spirited between having to stick to Germany and their absolute mania for Paris. I knewseverallikethatwhenthewar brokeout. I should suppose, however, that Germans who naturalised themselves were well aware that the war was coming, and discovering their aversion for such an unwarrantablehorror,had decided to havenothing to do with their Emperor and his army. Iremember,inLondon, several Germans. ... ALICEMORNING. 44 Views and Reviews. The Other Focus. WHATis wrong with the world? Perhaps should I Mr. Wells that he should ask : “What is wrong with be bothering someone about else’s wife, instead of attendingtotherevolutions of theplanet?”Itis a fact that about six months ago the world was set free by Mr. Wells. It was a mere matter of Science ; a few surgery was removed to aeroplanes, a few bombs-and theHimalayas,politics to Brissago,the womenwore o trousers, and there was t be no more love or jealousy. Revolution radio-activity by ; thatwastheformula. Now it seems that Mr. Wells was wrong ; anyhow, he hasdiscardedthecatastrophictheory of evolutionin favour of the Darwinian theory. Natura non facit saltum ; that is, Naturehasno . . . Rut Mr. Wells’ typographical ingenuity isdeveloping ;the simple—— is not enough forhim, it has been made too commonby the Press Bureau. When he wishes to make a silence that shallbe really heard, hemakestheprinterreproduce opaque oblongs, nice, fat black blanks that shout their discretion at the reader. He has ideas about illustrating novels which dealwith the slow evolution of states of mind ; and it is really unfortunate that Miss Florence Turner should be using a similar idea in her parodies of cinema artists. But everything is fame to Mr. Wells. Sixmonthsago,the millennium was to beinaugurated by the use of bombs that exploded for ever; now it seems that its advent will be delayed until Lady Harman has learned everything that Mr. Wells can tell her. of synthesis, collectivism-if you are Thisisanage a Fabian and prefer that word. I t all began with Malthus and machinery. First there was no population, or nothing to speakof;thentherewasmachinery,and the population grew at such a rate that Malthus advocated total abolition of the Poor Law. Now the invention o machinery f meant introduction the of large, wholesale ways of dealing with matter ;men and women apply machinery to them, are matter : ergo, we must metaphorically, of course. W h a t Mr. Wellsmeansis that family life, like the population before Malthus, was notbeensynthetised,the nothing to speak of; it had large, wholesale way of dealing with it had notbeen discovered. It has beendiscovered now-in the arrangements made by large drapery firms for boarding their employees. Living-in is the first step towards Utopia. But Mr. Wells is, of course, a social critic ; he knows to the Servile State. that living-in easily may lead Living-in must therefore become living-out ; this is not a paradox,but a synthesis. How can living-inbecome living-out? Ah ! Ah ! ! Ah ! ! ! That is why the story is about the wife of Sir Isaac Harman ; that is how Mr. Wells shows perception his of the purpose of God. Living-in is a form of Socialism, or Collectivism, o r synthesis, or whateveryoulike to callit ; butitisthe Socialism of the employer. But if the employer has a wife, and that wife has a lover who is a novelist? Now do you see?The employer createsthese living-in institutions, with sets of rules, and ex-wardresses to maintain discipline; and the employer’s wife waits until her of the novelist, husbandisdead,and,withthehelp converts the living-in institutions into living-out institutions. Thus the revolution is accomplished from above, not from below; and literature is rewarded, at the end of the book, by being tipped on its back, and soundly kissed on the lips by the great mother of the meaningless masses. The objection to living-in is that the employees are never free from the discipline of the employer ; they have no family life. Family life ought to be abolished ; it is * “The Wife of Sir Isaac (Macmillan. 6s.) Harman.” By H. G. Wells. dirty, and wasteful, and it has to be lived in lodgings. I t divides the working-classes landladies into and lodgers; the landladies object t o wives, the other lodgersobjecttobabies,andthedismal villas of the suburbs become what Mr. Brumley calls “Neo-Malthusian hutches.” In short, the population does not “proliferate,” to use another of Mr. Brumley’s words. Now wedonotwantthepopulation to proliferate-or, do we? I am not quite sure ; Lady Harman’s last adventure i n fecundity was a miscarriage, for which she was very ‘pleased. Anyhow, whatever happens the with working-classes is wrong, because theirs is not a large, wholesale way of doing things. If, instead of distributing the working-classes in lodgings and suburban villas, they are collected in living-out institutions, we have, so to speak, put all our eggs into one basket, and a common incubator can easily be supplied. Family life must not be destroyed ; it must be made communal in all e x cept the really private things. N o common dormitories, oranythinglike that; but commonkitchens,common refectories,commonlaundries,commonlibraries, common drawing-rooms. Celibacy without profligacy will thus be possible, and domesticity will be economical and sanitary. I must ask my readersnot t o be too hard on Mr. Wells : he means well. He is no believer in despotism, not even in benevolent despotism ; since his advent into the class of people who do things (announced by himself in the “Daily Mail”) he has been permeating that class a longprocess, withdemocraticideas.Permeationis to supand Mr. Wells learnt enough from the Fabians plyhimwithconversational matter for the rest of his life. For the whole art of permeation is summed up in a t once. Little by thisaxiom : Do nottelltoomuch little,step by step,Naturanonfacitsaltum ; besides, remember that you aretalking to a lady. Hersym; even the pathies democratic, her are bless heart waitresses loved her before her husband died.Butlier position, her training, her intelligence, everything in her is opposed toan immediate adoption of democracy. Besides, Darwinism the (and necessity of writing a “new novel”) long exwhat publisher the calls cludes conversion. Democracy must come in somewhere, the and peculiar device of democracy is the ; aristocommittee. Monarchy has Privy its Council cracy has its cabal ; but democracy has its committee, in other words, it is allowed speech, but no power. So the girls who live out by living-in have their committee; its powers are not defined, but they seem to be limited to the right of deputation to Lady Harman. Thatis a greatsteptowards freedom. Onething at a time, and don’t be in a hurry, because this is evoluof Mr. Wells.Hethat betion ; thatisthemethod lieveth shall not make haste ; you will find the phrase in of the Bible; and Mr. Wells is slower than the wrath God. But a vague,disquietingthoughtoccurs to me, due, I suppose, to myfamiliaritywiththedestructive criticism of the wage-system made by THENEW AGE. To whom will these hostels belong? To Lady Harman, the employer of most of the residents in these hostels ; so that the democraticfreedom of the girls is limited by thepermission of LadyHarman.Mr.Wellsdoes not disclose theexactterms of SirIsaacHarman’s will, but he suggests that Lady Harman’s power over these hostels is conditioned. If she marries again, the to a committee, which control of the hostels passes only StatesmenandStatesseems to include Servile women, the police of the employer.Nor is Lady Harman’s testamentary power defined ; and the question remains : “To whom do these hostels belong?’’ Do they revert to the company at her death ; or, if they fall into the hands of trustees, what is to prevent the trust from being abused? While this good lady (who was so much betterthanherhusband) lives, the hostels represent nothing but a benevolent despotism ; when she dies, if Mr. Wells’ opinion is correct, benevolence will die too, and the despotism only will remain. Where will democracy be then? I think that I prefer bombs the to A. E. R. permeation. 45 Pastiche. A BALLADE OF WATERLOO. I have heard many stories in my day; (I like to hearthemafter I havedined) And some were sad, and some were very gay, And some were neither funny nor refined. But one I heard that leaves the rest behind, A tale that shows what enterprise can do. When I am in a doleful frame of mind I like to hear that tale of Waterloo. You’ve heard i t ? Doubtless ! Letmehavemy say. A certain man, whose name is now enshrined, Knew a great battle would take place one day; So safe y perched himself some way behind The lines; and watched ;and then flew like the wind, Nor told his news-he’d better things to do. He had a simply splendid axe to I like to hear that tale of W a t e r l o o . Swiftly he sped on his triumphant way What time the tide of battle slow declined : Soon many a stricken homestead had to pay Its tribute to the dead, albeit resigned. But he feared not reproach nor words unkind . He did not feel the things that most men do. Business must be as usual, h e opined. I like to hear that tale of Waterloo. Prince, there are tales of valour in the wind, Of deeds plain British soldiers die to do. Some people like such tales as these, I find. I like to hear that tale of Waterloo. STEVENSON PARKER. “NathanRothschild . . . followed withhis own eyes, fromsome higher ground . . . the great struggle for the mastery of Europe. And before the defeated Emperor ordered the last desperate attack, Nathan Rothschild turned his back on the field of battle ; he had seen enough . . . Before his eyes was the battlefield of the Exchange, Romance of the and he hastened into action.”-The ENVOI. Rothschilds. ENGLAND AND THENEXT W A R (1922). Oxford Pamphlet No. 3456789. “WHAT RUSSIA IS, AND WHY WE’VE GOT TO THRASH HER. ” By C. F. L. Retcher,Eg-regius Professor of Condescension. Well, Russia is a very large and wicked country in the East of Europe. The people are called Slavs, but, really, they ought to be called slaves, for they aren’t free like the British who know no master, but they obey a person called the Tsar, who maybe outwardly like our dear King George, but is inwardlyvery different. In fact, he is a very bad man indeed, as bad as that other tyrant, the German Kaiser, who, eight years ago, caused such trouble in Europe. Of course, no one knows very much about the Russians, except that they are very ignorant and sinful. It is true that they were once our Allies, and then they behaved better because of our good example, but since then they have had a relapse. Once they joined us in giving law and order totheturbulent Persians, but now theyare accusing us of greedandshowing off their own malice and ignorance. They have a largecity called Petrograd,andavery wicked place it is. It is not at all like our dear London, for it contains great extremes of wealth and poverty, and the ruling classes actually let the poor starve to death. Against such a cowardly and vicious nation are we now fighting. Some of theRussianslive a t a place called Moscow, andgoto an ArtTheatre, which shows how effeminate they must be. They have no football matches, but like to watch peopledancing. In short, there is no kind of depravity which they have not reached. They have no greatwriters such as we have. Those who have become famous are merely sordid, and the Russians love to grub about in human garbage. I would like to make a joke about our good Garvice and their nasty garbage, but this is war time, and we ought to be praying and not laughing. There was another man called Tolstoy, but all that you need know about him is that he was oncean officer in their army and lived an immoral life. After hearing that you will not want to read any of his works. It is against this great lumpish and uncivilised nation that we have to fight, and very gallant Allies we have. It will be a great day when the Esquimaux come sweeping down to that wicked Petrograd and make it clean again. Primarily, this war is in support of the Pan-Esquimaux But movement which the Russians have tried to crush. we and the good Germans and the valiant Frenchand clever little Japs will teach the tyrants a lesson. Remember that we are fighting for our own safety. Whenever I go recruiting I say to the young men : “If you don’t fight the Russians now. you will become a Russian conscript and be sent on an aggressiveexpedition to the North Pole, which the Russian merchants have long been coveting.” And they say : “Yes, s i r ” - I don’t insist on their it of their own free will, calling me “sir,” but they do thus showing the difference between servileRussiaand ourdear, free England-“Yes, sir,” and of theygoto f fight. And I hope every young man will da the same and help to givethese wicked Russiansthethrashingthey deserve. IVOR BROWN. OUR SUBALTERN. O all the mugs I’ve ever met our subalterntakes the f bun ; His soul is concentrated in bawling out “’Ten-shun!” I he sees a man on sentry who appearsalittleslack, f Hetakeshis post in front of himand shows him the tic-tac“ One-two !” He walks into the barrack-room just on the stroke of ten, And sees the orderly-sergeantcall the roll of men; But,havingneitherfaithnorsense,the roll-call is in vain ; The subaltern goes round the room and counts the men again“ One-two !” He pretends to be a soldier who is up to serve the King, But he’s out for social honours and the kudos that they bring, And the painful part about it is-real soldiers must salute This essence of a mugwump, a brainless, soft galoot(‘One-two !” at his Whenhe goes uponhis duty, there’s “Bobby” heels, Sniffing this and snapping that, till everybody feels Thatthe choice between the masterandhissmallbut mongrel dog Is like that between a boar and a domesticated hog‘‘ One-two !’’ The Lord preserve old soldiers, when a noodle is in charge ; His mind is bent on trifles, he knows of nothing large; is the very highest thing; He thinks that to salute him save Well, I’ll see him go to blazes, whilst I sing “God the King”l P. F. T H E COMMERCIAL PATRIOT. “If I had my way,” he begins his clacking, “I’dcollar every single mouldy skunk ; I’d send the blanky gang of shirkers packing; I’d give the blighters beans for showing funk. “If I were y o u n g e r - ” Ah, if he were younger, H e wouldn’t mind a fortnight in the ram ! He’d only be too pleased to die of hunger; He’d love to have a bullet in his brain. (“That’s right,my lad.Your kingand country need you. You’ll find the trenches make a jolly bed; And, if your king and country cannot feed you, You’ll have a glut of honour when you’re dead.”) But, as it is, he’s active in the City, Ferreting round to work some shady scheme ; He’s secretary of the sub-committee For furnishing the troops with chocolate-cream. Busy with other people’s wheedled tanners ; Busy with some new-fangled cadging wheeze; Busy with noisy doggerel and banners ; Busy with woodbines, socks, and refugees. He counts. the blankets that his minion fetches, And touts around to launch a needless fund. He slangs the Kaiser till his hearer retches; His ranting leaves a peaceful spirit stunned. O patriot, you seem to thrive and fatten On this vast sacrifice that you have made. God damn you for the lies on which you batten ! You ought to have your stinking carcase flayed. O patriot,your soul does not embellish The native fauna of these island-shores. The Prussians may be fiends, theymay be hellish; Their devilry is no whit worse than yours. P. S . “One-two!” 46 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. “DRIFTING.” Sir,-The immunity criticism from enjoyed by the present Government does not seem to be improving the world-situation. Those of us who have resisted the antiGerman and anti-Turkish policy of Sir E. Grey, who has conducted the statecraft of Britain as though the Empire were a vassal State to Russia, are witnessing the fruition of this blundering bitterness despair. with and Can nothing prove to Britainthe crass incompetence of Sir E. Grey, or does the Oppositionrequire the addition of other Powers totheranks of Britain’s enemies before insistinguponachange in the ForeignSecretaryship ? At no time in the history of Britain was the duty of the Opposition to oppose so plain. intervention The of Turkey in this war might have been preventedby the adoption of a less hectoring policy than has been pursued towards thatStateinthe last few months. The consequences o Turkish f hostility may be incalculable in Afghanistan, for instance, and indirectly in India, Egypt, and Burmah. There is astrangedelusion,cultivatedbythelying Powers of section of the British Press, that the neutral Europeandthe United Statesare overwhelmingly proEnglish. What evidence this is founded upon I cannot anearlystage of the say, as it seems non-existent.At war, the British people were told that the Poles would rise against Austria and Prussia. Nothing of the kind has happened ; buttherehas been a partialrevoltagainst Russia, according to statements the appearing the in Polish Press inthe United States. It is certainly true that German methods are not admired in onlooking Burope ; but, though the domination of Germany would be resented, the predominance of the Russo-French-British combination, without the balancing factor of a strong Germany, is regarded with as much uneasmess, hence, Turkey’s move. Theenemy o Turkey has always been f Russia ; the enemy of Sweden has always been Russia. If British diplomacy is not very carefully handled, Sweden will join Germany,not out of hostility to Britainbut from fear of Russia. How is it, too, that no news isprinted from Spain? Spain is most restlessand no one cantellwhatmay happen; but it is childish to imagine that the Spanish people, who have never forgotten that Gibraltar is a Spanish territory, are specially enamoured of Britain. The practical blockade of Holland by Britain may be a necessity of strategy; but it is an element of danger i n the future, as the Dutch people, naturally, will only tolerate a certain amount of inconvenience. Britons have been informed with much confidence that Italy would join the AlliesagainstAustria.Those who put forward that view have over-estimated the influence of the Irredentist movement, which is limited to a section of Italy, and had forgotten that the revolutionary, antiwar elements are exceedingly strong. The position in Ireland, as has at last been admitted by the “Times,” is exceedingly inflammatory, and an attempt to establish Conscription, which is rumoured as the next step in this great campaign against “militarism,” would probably lead to a revolt on a considerable scale. Take opinion in the United States as a sample of the misrepresentation prevalent in British the Press. The ‘‘New York Times” is a paper which has been put forward as pro-English. It is a powerful paper; and knowing its previous history, one would have accepted that it was pro-English. This paper, withmuchenterprise, has issued a collection of the British,German, and Russian official correspondence. There are no comments in its pamphlet except upon the second German White Paper; but those comments are significant. The opening one is : “The following documents refer to the exchange of views between Germany andEnglandimmediately before the war broke out. It will be perceived from these documents that Germany was prepared to spare France in case England should remain neutral, and would guarantee the neutrality of France.” The concluding remark’ is : “Even if there existedmisunderstanding a astoanEnglish proposal, the Kaiser’s offer furnished England the opportunity to prove her pacific disposition and to prevent the Franco-German War.” No single organ of the American Press is representative of even a section of public opinion;butthisexample is interesting, asthe “New York Times” has been much quoted in the British’ Press. Opinion in the United States is divided on the subject; but it is felt that Grey has a heavy responsibility for the War takingthepresent form. The contrabandquestion is one which will need delicate manipulation, as anything might happen inthe excitedandangry condition of the American mind, which is veryresentful of the damage caused by the War to the finance, trade and commerce of the United States.The refusal of President Wilson to permit American financiers to assist belligerent countries by American loans is a n illustration of the watchful and anxious attitude of the Administration. Public judgment in the United States hasbeen unfavourably affected by the by exaggeratedstories of Germanatrocities,circulated the Belgians and French, few of whichhave been confirmedby the American correspondents,especially now thatthe Senegalese and Gurkha savageries are beingwidely disseminated. Incidentally, the British people should be on their guardagainstthe wild allegationsagainstthe German troops now being spread by the Belgian and French f refugees. Most o them are lieson their face ; a n d one must deplore this way of discrediting a nation whose courage and ability are unpleasantly to thefore. The vile abuse of men of the character of Bottomley is a tributeto the Germans which one would prefer not to see in print. f Mr. Bottomley may have all kinds. o notions a s to what mighthappento Keir Hardie in Germany; but one is certain where Mr. Bottomley would be hadhe been a as the British German subject. However, so long people heed such counsellors, nothing much can be done to purify politics and social life. The unwisdom of authorising the South African Government to embark upon the campaign against German South-West Africa must be obvious even to the British Government ; and the penalty is being paid for the silence of the House of Commons during the early days of the f war. What is the use of the representatives o the people if theyaregoingto remain dumb? One cannot bring bluster of gentlemen like this war to a close on the WinstonChurchill (whose views onhiscolleague, Lord Kitchener, expressed in “The River War,” are worthy of study), or by the rant of the Cadbury-Harmsworth-Hulton Press. What is most disquieting is the repetition of the statement that this war is going on fill German militarism is destroyed. Are not the lessons of history unanimous that internal reform can never be forced upon a powerful‘ nationbyexternal war ? The tremendous combination against the French Revolution completely failed for that reason ; it produced Napoleon, who so harried Europe that Europe was glad to come to terms time after time with France. It is as absurd to seek to destroy German militarismbyahostilecombination as it would be to endeavour to set up a decent Government in Russia by t h e same means. Internal reform must be initiated and completed by the people o the country themselves ; or else f the country must be so weak that an armed occupation is, possible. Britain went to war toreformtheTransvaal. The reform was not effected until the independence of the South African Republics was destroyed ; and, even now, it would require a powerful microscope to detect any reform worth speaking about; also a portion of the people is in rebellion. To sum up, Britain is pursuing a policy which is one be continued till a manlike Sir of ruination; it will. John Simon, who has ten times the ability of Sir E. Grey, ten times the knowledge of languages and other nations, is made andthousand a times more Liberal outlook, Foreign Secretary, and a determination arrived at by the Cabinet to reverse thepresent policy as quickly a s is consistent with safetyandthe exigencies of European,, African, Asian, and American politics. C. H. NORMAN. P.S.-The action of the United States Government in interning a German cruiser is a sign that the U.S. Administration is assuming a more favourable attitude towards Britain, which is all to the good, as compared with the U.S. declaration upon the contraband question.. Concerning the action in the Pacific Ocean, it is well to remember that seawarfare is widely differentiated from warfare onland, in that the vastexpanse of the ocean is trackless, whereas land warfare is limited by the contour of the land, the roads and cities, and the character of the soil. German The squadron has the advantage o the f considerable German population of South America as suppliers of information, for the South American Republicshavenotsuchcontrolover theirsubjects as would enable to them enforce strict neutrality. C. H. N. *** FOREIGN AFFAIRS. S i r , - I am sure that neither you nor your readers expect me to take up a column or so every week in correcting Mr. Norman’s inaccuracies. In hislast letter m y critic repeats a contention of his which I had already disproved, 47 viz., ”August 2 was before the violation of Luxemburg’s neutrality was known to the Cabinet, which had authorised Sir E. Grey in the morning of August 2 to give the assurance to France. S. Verdad states, : ‘The fact is that the German Army crossed the Luxemburg frontier on the night of August I.’ TheMinister of State forLuxemburg telegraphed on August 2 to Sir E. Grey : ‘On Sunday, August 2, very early, the German troops penetrated into ‘Luxemburg territory.’ The telegram conveying that intimation did not reach London till after the Cabinet had risen; therefore, the assurance to France was authorised before news had reached London of the violation of the territories of Luxemburg or Belgium.” It will be noticed that Mr. Norman here calmly repudiates one of his own most categorical statements ; for he said inhisoriginalletter(THENEW AGE, October 15) : “August 2 was before theneutrality of Luxemburgor Belgium had been violated.” Whatare we tothink of such a ‘Controversialist ? Would any responsiblewriter try to gloss over his inaccuracies in this fashion? However, let us examine Mr. Norman’s latest contention. I gather from what he says i n THE NEW AGEof October 29 that Mr. Norman holds that the telegram of August 2 announcing the invasion of Luxemburg did not reach the Cabinet until after a certain assurance had been given to France. Thepoint, as Mr. Norman mighthave realised ifhe had not been so .anxious to conceal the unpleasant truth from himself, was not whether the telegram in question reached the Cabinet before or after the assurance had been given ; but whether the Cabinet knew of the invasion of Luxemburg before it met on the morning of August 2. This, clearly, is Mr. Norman’s point. He says that the Cabinet did not know. Will it be believed that his second categorical statement is as untruthful as his first? Such is the case. Our Cabinet met early on Sunday, August 2. At midnight on Saturday the French Embassy in London issued a fairly lengthystatementtothe Press on the origin of the war; and in the course of this statement the following sentence appears : “This (Saturday) morning the French Embassygets official news that Luxemburg hasbeen invaded and that German troops are marching on the town, and to the fortress of Longwy.” This statement appears in some of the special editions of the Sunday papers, and it was, of course, before the Cabinet when the Ministers met on Sunday morning. The Cabinet met at eleven a.m. and remained sitting until two p.m., and I am informed that a few provincial papers had this Embassy statementdisplayed in their windows as early as 9.10a.m. of Another point : Mr. Normanrepeats, inhisletter October 29, his statement that the “assurance” was handed to M. Cambon on the morning of August 2. The newspapers tell us, however, that it was not until 2.30 p.m. that M . Cambon called on Sir Edward Grey. Mr. Norman is, of course, wrong inhisotherstatements. The statement referred to in the “Echo de Paris” was not denied. So far from denying it, in fact, the German Ambassador in Paris simply tried to explain it away. I regard the “Echo de Paris” more highly than Mr. Norman does. (Incidentally, I may say that I can hardly be expected to regard Mr. Norman as an authority on anything). The accuracy of the “Echo de Paris,” however, I quoted the paper merely is not in question at all. because it was the only one containing the statement I mentioned in my previous letter. In the face of these facts, which may be verified from the published prints, Mr. Norman’s accusation of falsity against me is not merely unwarranted; it isinsulting. As I have shown above, Mr. Norman swallows one of his own falsehoods without having the decency to admit that he was in the wrong. I n his second letter he has again given wrong dates and falsified the facts of the case to suit his purpose. He recklessly disregards thewritten evidence of blue-books, whitepapers, official telegrams, and all the other published evidence at the disposal of the whole world. If this is done throughsheercarelessness, Mr. Norman has no right to put pen to paper. I it is f done through sheer perversity, through a desire to deceive himself and his readers at all costs, I hesitate to suggest what should be done withhim. His future communications might be addressed, I think, to the “Daily Mail.” S . VERDAD. could have dictated the outrageous ultimatum sent to Serbia by Austria (and Germany). No nation that was not pacific in its intentions could have dictated the conciliatory answer returned to Austria J. M. Russia). Serbia (and by * * * THE GREAT ILLUSION. Sir,-In your issue of September 2 , I offered a psycho4 logical explanation of the belief intherumours of the passage of Russian troops through England. The following week, “Romney” in his “Military Notes” said : ‘‘A motleyhost whose composition it would be unwise to disclose, but which any intelligent person can deduce for himself, is pressing[theGerman forces]on their northwestern flank. With regard the to host, and the to rumoursas to its composition, andto theirnumerous denials, official and otherwise, l will only say in answer to ‘A. E. R.’ that ‘Freud’s theory of dreams’ is not nearly so good a guide as ‘Romney’s theory of common sense. There is no space available to explain this interesting discovery in detail; but it may be remarked that one of its. main points is contained in the apothegm that there is ‘no smoke without fire.’” have been waiting patiently I for “Romney” to develop this “theory of common sense” in some detail ; but, so far, I have been disappointed. May I suggest that there is plenty of space available in your correspondence columns for the statement of this theory, and that, if “Romney” will make some use of it, I can ? A. E. R. promise interested him one reader *** * * * Sir,-I don’t want to add fuel to Mr. C. H. Norman’s indignation by arguing with him : only I wish to make one point which I have not seen mentioned in THE NEW AGE. It seems to me to answer briefly and decisively the question of Germanic or Russian responsibility for the war. No nation that was not aggressive in its intentions Sir,-Mr. thall’s repeated excuses for Turkish unrest-namely, that she thought she knew that the Entente meant to make an end of her”-she, I presume, refers to Turkey-“it would be interestingto knowwhat hethinks of the Foreign Office statement just issued.” Well, I think it is a Foreign Office statement. S. Verdad admits that “it tells us no more than we have seen f in the papers.” I Mr. Stanley Hope turns to my article upon another page, he will there find one or two points which we havenot seen in the papers. The Foreign Office statement, Mr. Hope informs me, of the war the British opens thus : “Atthebeginning Government gave definite assurances that if Turkey remained neutral her independence and integrity would be respected during the war and in the terms of peace. In this France and Russia concurred.” Mr. Hope asks : “Is the Foreign Office lying ?” What a question ! I Mr. f Hope had done me the honour to follow my remarks upon this subject closely, he would know that a joint assurance of the Three Powers had sinister associations for the Porte, and that the word of England only would have had more weight. The joint assurance just before the Balkan War that no attack on Turkey was intended or would be permitted, by which Turkey was persuaded to disband the is unforgettable.Engbest part of herEuropeanarmy, land was probablyadupe inthat transaction;at any desire to rate, the Turks thought so. As for Russia, her “make end of” Turkey has an (pace S. Verdad) been veryill-disguised,and Turks, excusably, do not believe a word that Russia says. They think that Russia dominates the Triple Entente. “It seems more probable,” concludes your correspondent, “that Mr. Pickthall has been fooled by the Young Turks into whose complete confidence he appears never tu have been taken.” I amneitheranagent nor a member of the Young Turk party, nor have I ever penned a line at its suggestionorbehest. I was in complete confidence of my priits members-heretofore the British vatefriendsamong party-who corresponded with me until very recently. But they have never tried to influence my judgment. Having taken the trouble to go and study Turkish party questions on the spot, and as Turks see them, with considerable previous knowledge of the Asiatic side of Turkish character which so evidently puzzles my opponents, I think I am less likely t o be “fooled” than they are. With S. Verdad mydiscussion is, alas ! now purely academical, thanks to an unlucky current of events. But there is one sentence in his article of November 5th unworthy of hishaughty pseudonym.He writes : “Enver Pashahas always been German in hissympathies, and so have most of his colleagues, though not so strongly as he.” No, S. Verdad. All the YoungTurks, even Enver, were pro-British only yesterday as history reckons ; and even at the outbreak of this war “most of his colleagues” were not pro-German save by force of circumstances. That Germany ever got the whip hand of the Young Turks n t TURKISH INDEPENDENCE. Stanley Hope writes : “In view of Mr. Pick- 48 all is due to England’s failure to stand by them as they wished her to do. British policy in Turkey has, since the Revolution, been as weak and shifty asGerman policy has been straightforward and aggressive. The British Government has lately shown forbearance towards the German-ridden Porte, when the Germans could have been unseated by a bold initiative. I, of course, accept S. Verdad’s assurance thatthe Allies never contemplated handing Constantinople over to Russia if Turkey had reI think they mained neutral during war; this but blundered grossly in their efforts to keep Turkey neutral, and S. Verdad seemed once to indicate that there was some idea o taking Constantinople away from Turkey even had f she kept neutrality; which is much the same thing for the unlucky Turks. It is a dirty mess, which might, I think, have been avoided. So much for the past. Now that England is actually at war with Turkey I shall write no more in controversy on this subject. It would be hard, indeed, were Turkey to be mercilessly punished when the war is over for an action into which she has been practically forced or kidnapped. Her case is one for pity, like the case of Belgium: I am grateful to S. Verdad for advocating greater leniency in thesettlementthanFranceandRussia would, I think, desire. May his views take root and flourish in the understanding of our rulers, and oust ever that bad project of for MADUKE partition. PICKTHALL. capital instead of a German one appeared as a sufficiently good reason. As a matter of fact, however, the question is not SO simple, and there is a great deal t o be said with regard to this re-naming and in opposition to it. I will briefly outline here the principal reasons which cause me to think that this change cannotpossibly be .permanently effected, and that in the end St. Petersburg will retain its historic name. First of all, I must say that I do not believe that this renaming has actually taken place. I am rather inclined to think the that Government, yielding tothe patriotic petitions that were organised by some newspapers, simply agreed to allow the new name for St. Petersburg to be temporarilyadoptedwithoutdoingawaywiththe old one, and put off the final decision until the end of the War. I am convinced of the correctness of this assumption, owing to the fact that at the Russian Consulate in London no official intimation whatever has been received regarding the re-namin of St. Petersburg. I made inquiries there, and was told that in their correspondence they use the new name “Petrograd,” but that they know of this change only from the papers. I go even further and think that in the event of St. Petersburgreallychangingits name,such a re-naming f cannot be finally effected without the consent o the St. Petersburg Academy of Science, the universities and literary societies. is utterly out Personally, I think that this re-naming of the question,, andeven were it an accomplished fact, I should, nevertheless, regard it as an act of vandalism differing in no wise from the destruction of historic monuments and works of Art. Historic names and appellations have as much right to their existence and to have their neutrality respected as other memorials of the past. Consequently, the violation its destructionmay or disregard of thisneutralityand unquestionably be regarded as vandalism. True, St. Petersburg is not a very old word; it is only just a little over 200 years old, but during these 200 years it has become part and parcel of the Russian language, and is, moreover, forming a part of Russian history. The word “Peterburg” (the word “Saint” is only written in Russian, but never pronounced) has long since become Russian; it has come to form a part of the Russian speech and of Russianliterature,andthepopularlanguage never attempted to replace i t by another, except that it used it in a curtailed form occasionally. So many distinct ideas and conceptions are associated with the word “Peterburg” from which many another word has sprung, as, for instance, “the Peterburgian” not “the St. Petersburg man,” and so forth, which it would be impossible to replacebyother words. “ThePetrogradian,”instead of the “Peterburgian,” will be simply too absurd. There are so many .real things connected with Peterburg, too : there is the Peterburg style, the Peterburg ladies, there are Peterburg the climate and Peterburg the weather, therearethePeterburg Germans, and in Moscow’they sell the Peterburg “Calatchi” (rolls), which are an imitation of the far-famed Moscow calatchi. If the word “Peterburg” is to go, then. what will become of the old dispute as to which is better-Moscow or Peterbur ? This dispute as to the comparative merits or demerits ofMoscow and Peterburg has acquired in Russia as great a significance and is as frequently heard as in the rest of the world the dispute relative to the respective merits of manand woman. And for thisdispute“Petrograd” is evidently unsuitable. It is impossible to alter thousands of expressions that form art of the daily language : it is impossible to alter the whole of our literature-Poushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, Tolstoy. Finally, if Peterburg is to change its name, they why leave other foreign names ? MOSCOW, is not a Rustoo, sian word ; it is a Finnish word, andmeans : muddy water. TheancientRussian name for thatsmall river from which the town of Moscow takes its name, used to be : Smoródinka, (Little Blackcurrant). I do not know whether anyone would like to call Moscow : Smoródinka, but this would, nevertheless, be preferable to “Petrograd.” Apartfromallelse, the will of Peterthe Great,the Reformer of Russia, who had named his new capital SaintPeterburg, i.e., the Town of SaintPeter, is also worth something, and ought to be considered. Peter had introduced a curious habit, or rather fashion, of giving the new townsforeignnames, but now these foreignappellationscontain a certain echo of that fardistant epoch which it is impossible to replaceby anything else if they are once destroyed. * * * Sir,-May I thank Mr. Marmaduke Pickthall for pointing out the error in my letter and apologise to S. Verdad for having taken his name in vain. Mr. Stanley Hopeappears to believe implicitly in assurancesgiven bythe Christian Powers to Mahommedan countries. I venture to think that the Muslim world does not share his, in faith Christian promises. We know that the Powers guaranteed the independence and integrity of the Moorish Em ire, but in spite of this guarantee the French were allowed to break the Treaty of Algeciras and occupy Fez. TheOttomanEmpire may disappear,butourForeign Minister, who has helped Russia to carryout herlong cherished wish totake Constantinople, will not be forgotten or forgiven by the Muslim world. DOUGLAS Fox PITT. * * * Sir,-At a time like the present when the care of children left fatherless has become a very serious question, and when theremightbeabundant offers forthcoming from people willing to adopt those who are orphaned, the need for legal protection on behalf of both adoptive parent and child is manifestly pressing. Under existing conditions both parties run a very grave risk. On the one hand,the adoptiveparentcannot be compelled to provide for the future of an adopted child, such child becoming penniless in the event of its foster parent’s intestate. death On the other hand, in the absence of legal recognition of contracts in this connection, an adoptiveparent is liable to become the victim of any blood relation of his foster-child, who a t a convenient moment might express a desire to claim the child for one reason or another. I n May last this question was broached (in the “Contemporary Review”) in an able article by J. H. Macnair. Since its appearance, however, thematter has become very much more urgent, and as the speeding up of legislation for the benefit of the community has been one of the most powerful reforms brought about by this war, it is devoutly to be hoped that room will be found during the next Session for a Bill designed to repair this sad omission in the Statute Book. Great Britain Holland and are the sole remaining civilised countries in which this grave matter is neglected. ROGATOR. LEGALISATION OF ADOPTION. * * * ST. PETERSBURG OR “PETROGRAD”? Sir,-The re-naming of St. Petersburg, if, indeed, it be an accomplished fact, has been brought about all too suddenly and much too lightly. I was not in Russia at the time (I happened to be in India when the War broke out), and do not know what attitude the moreseriousportion of thePress took up towards this change, or whether any voices were raised in protest. But it is probable that there were none, simply on account of the Censor and of the special conditions prevailing just now. The English press and public accepted this exchange of St. Petersburg for Petrograd without criticism. The fact that Russia was anxious to have a Russian name for its 49 But the principal objection against the re-naming of St. Petersburg is after all contained in the word “Petrograd.” First of all,thisis not aRussian word. Foreigners is incomprehensible to the cannot know this, it and uneducated i n . aliterarysenseandfrequentlyilliterate portion of the public even in Russia. The word “Petrograd”might be Czech, or Bulgarian, but it is certainly not a Russian mord. is that which is Finally, the real Russian language spokenby the people. At times it happens that one may bear a simple, uneducated man speak a brilliant and pure it isjustthislanguage,thelanguage of Russian.And the people, which could not have created the word “Petrograd.” The word “Petrograd” is by no means new; it is almost as old as the word “Petersburg” (or, as the Russians say, Peterburg). This word belongs to the pseudo-Russian literary lanappeared in the guage of the 18th century. It first pompously artificial and pseudo-classical literature and became extremely popular in various odes and poems of the pre-Poushkin period, but just on account of its cumbersomeness and inconvenience it could not enter into the everyday speech. The Russian language was then divided intothe socalled “high style” and the “common language.” The word “Petrograd” belonged to the “high style,” as allelse that was artificial, un-Russian and invented. The Renaissance of Russian literature began with Poushkin, who had made a thorough study of the “common language” through the stories told him by his old nurse, and who had found in the despised popular language that beauty and power of expression which have created the modern Russian literary language, and which is much nearer to the legends a n d poems of the IX-XII centuries than to the odes of the XVIII century. This is another point that foreignersareunaware of, “young country,” regarding, asthey do, Russiaasa namely, that the Russian language is one of the oldest in Europe, havingexistedalmostin its presentform at a timewhen neither French, English, nor modern German had as yet come into being. But “Petrograd” is an artificial, non-Russian word. There is not one name of an ancient town in Russia endand Slavonic ing in “grad.” This is a south western term, and it has a dialectic sound in Russian. True, there are some towns founded in the 18th century and named in the pseudo-Russian style with the ending of “grad.” But atthat time those words undoubtedly had a foreign sound about them, in the same way as the names Elisavetpol or Ekaterinburg sound foreign. The word “Petrograd” is an absurd word, and was most probably conceived in the 18th century by some learned German with a view to stirring up patriotism in the Russian barbarians. It is to be hoped that after the war the Academy of Science will put up a plea in favour of St. Petersburg, and I trust that having victoriously defeated the Germans, St. Petersburg will be granted an amnesty, too, and that it willbe permitted to remain in Russia. If, however, the name “Petrograd” remains in the place of Petersburg, this will be a victory for vulgarity, Illiteracy and bad taste. But, altogether, vulgarity, illiteracy and bad taste carry the day in this world, and I shall not, therefore, be greatly surprised if Petersburg is defeated and ousted by Petrograd. P. OUSPENSKI *** COMPULSION. pulsion of being compelled to bow to the will of someone else upon a matter which could only affect himpersonally ? When “E. G. G.” writes that “it has been recognised in recent wars thatthedeaths from typhoidmayoutnumber easily thedeaths from wounds,” heforgetsthe experience of Japan in her war against Russia, and it is the lesson taught by Japan, who only lost two per cent. of her 600,000 fighting men as the result of disease, that we are now profiting Water-filtering by. carts accompany the British troops, whilst the Indians have brought with themhugebarrels,fittedwith special filters, which are taken on to the battlefields in order that each man may draw his supply of water. In this week’s “British Medical Journal” it is recorded that “one hopeful factor is thatthe British soldier seems thointhesituation roughly impressed with the need of abstaining from.drinking any water other than that served outto him ready sterilised,or, at allevents,ismuch more docile in the matter than was his predecessor of fourteen years ago in South Africa.” But when the war is over, and our men have escaped with a negligible quantity of typhoidas compared with the terrible toll exacted at the Cape-which we may take for granted will be the case-the inoculators will unanimously conveniently the ignore natural preventive methods of hygiene which are beingso stringently enforced, On the contrary, they will, perhaps, desire a Parliamentary grant for Sir Almroth Wright and subscribe for a statue in his honour--at the same time crying aloud for the compulsory inoculation of all children within six months of their birth with the idea of compensating for the evil days upon which the orthodox vaccination has of THE fallen. In further justification of the attitude NEW AGE and some of its contributors in advocating the removal of the causes of disease as far preferable to vaccine andserum-therapy I mayquote from the Report of theSurgeon-General, U.S. Army, for 1913 : “It must be especially emphasised that there has been no lessening of the efforts in the Army to prevent, by improved sanitary measures, the occurrence of typhoid infection. Advances in the othersanitarymeasures have gone on, hand in hand, with the extension of the typhoid prophylaxis.” So we usually find that those who advocate and practise the anti-typhoid inoculation are far too wise to rely upon the system, although they accord it all the credit. By way of adding to the pathos I cite two extracts from “Serums, Vaccines, and Toxines,” by Drs. Bosanquet and Eyre : “The injections are followed by redness and pain at thesite of inoculation, with some lymphangitis and glands. may There be enlargement of neighbouring nausea and even vomiting, and there is considerable feeling of illness, with some rise of temperature. Occasionally, a condition approaching collapse is observed. These sympill toms pass off rapidly without leaving any permanent effects, but they are severe enough to act as a very real deterrent.” “Occasionally, the symptoms produced by the original vaccine were severè, and even alarming, though no fatal results are recorded. Thus, Lindsay (“Lancet,” 1905,ii., 827) saw a case in which an acute illness ensued, lasting 14 days ; and we have seen a similar case in which there was very high fever (103-104 deg. F.) for several days, with headache, sleeplessness, and distension of the abdomen, following the second of two injecf That the tions given at an interval o seven days.” health of our soldiers is of paramount importance no one denies, and yet a certain classof gentlemen seek to achieve the desired goal through such channelsas are here described ! Truly, “it is pathetic.” JOHN II. BONNER. *** Sir,—With the concluding sentence in the main portion of the letter o f “ E . G. G.” in your issue of October 29 I heartily agree. It is pathetic, that People of ordinary intelligence cannot see the folly of sowing disease in order to reap health, and, what is even worse, that whilst the medical profession are at variance regarding the value of certain alleged prophylactics, those in high places should take advantage of the patriotism of men who are willing to lay down their lives for our Empire by using them for illegitimate purposes. For that is all the present scheme amounts to, because, assureasnight follows day, the commercial spirit which hasprompted the unloading of hundreds of gallons of anti-typhoid vaccine into our military campsfor use under the benign (!) sway of “personal influence’’ (afterthestupendousbutfutile efforts to secure its compulsory injection) will next result i n a n assailing of the civil population. I am afraid your correappreciate the position. Suppose he spondent fails to wished to undergo this method of vaccination,and the practice was forbidden. Would he not object to that com- Sir,-Mr. Robieson writes a good deal about other people’s “confusion of thought,” but his division ofone simple question into three is not likely to aid that “clear vision” which he extols. The position of those who denounce the practical compulsion of our troops to be inoculatedagainst typhoid feveris exceedinglysimple, butas Mr. Robieson wants it explained under three headings, there can be no objection to obliging Here, him. then, are answers to his three queries. (I) Medicine has not “succeeded in discovering a serum” which safeguardsagainsttyphoid. If it had, it would be able to demonstrate the value of thatserum (vaccine?)without (I) concealing importantfactsabout a new disease called “parasanitation ; (2) inventing typhoid” in which to put the inoculated cases of typhoid ; (3) publishing false and conflicting figures(4) attribut; ing to the inoculationa reduction inthe disease which took place before it was used. That the advocates of in- 50 oculation have done all these things can be proved beyond question. (2) In view of the answer to the first question, it is -naturally inadvisable that soldiers in training should be inoculated. (3) If the military authorities decide that it is advisable, they should only be allowed to influence those who know as little about the matter as they’ do, and not to coerce those who know more. The germ-theory of disease is not “disliked” by antivivisectionists ; it is disproved. And the arguments used -in disproof are never answered by the other side. BEATRICE E. KIDD. Secretary, British Union for Abolition of Vivisection, 32, Charing Cross, S.W. of her protégé’s, history. manageress of various facts Within earshot of the woman, shesaid,“Shehasthree children to a man, and he’s not married to her. Isn’t it awful?” -She would have continued, but thè other, interruptedher,saying, “I’m sure, Mrs. —, I don’t want to know the woman’s affairs ;and I don’t think you should tell them.” Trailing the unfortunate behind her, the Soul of Charitydisappeared.Theseinquisitorscertainly have talent for research. It is a pity they cannot perform their functions fully. How useful would they be to search the dead German bodies i n France for plans, diaries, orders, and love letters ! They have’ served a good apprenticeship here in England. JOHNDUNCAN. *** * * * Sir,-I should have been more impressed by the protests of your correspondents, “E. G. G.” and Mr. Robieson, if they had dealt with the point that I raised, or had offered some proof of their own assertions. Mr. Robieson specifically avoids the question of compulsion, and confines against “attacks on pure science himself to a protest under the cover of political rights.” This is, of course, a perversion of the facts; my article was a protest against Sir Almroth Wright’s attack on what Mr. Robieson calls “political rights” under the cover of pure science. I have no objection to “pure science” ; but so soon as it ‘leaves the laboratoryandattaches itself to the Government it ceases to be “pure science” and becomes politics. If anti-typhoid inoculation were really as effective and harmless as your correspondents pretend, I should still object to its being forced on a body of men who are in good health. Inthe case of vaccination against smallpox, the Government has been compelled to leave the it ‘choice tothe discretion of the civilpopulation;but refuses this exercise of discretion toits soldiers. I am .aware of the fact that there are many other sera and vac.cines, and the prophylactic fanatics like “E. G. G.” are evidentlypreparedto demand that our soldiers be compulsorily inoculated withall of them. It was precisely ‘because Sir Almroth Wright hinted at a similar extension f of the application of the principle o compulsion that I wrote my article. So long as we have a volunteer army, -it is necessary, in my opinion, to restrict the exercise of compulsion to’ the minimum necessary to discipline and training in the art of war. The fact that a man has joined the Army does notmean that a “pure scientist,” any more than a “pure moralist” or a “pure political theorist,” h a s therightto compel him to submit toexperiment; .and the fact demonstrated by Sir Almroth Wright in his article, that anti-typhoid inoculation prevents neither the contraction of the disease nor death from it, disposes at once of the argument “pure that science” should be .;allowed to over-ride ordinary human judgment. THEWRITEROF THE ARTICLEON “COMPULSION.” *** RELIEF. Sir,-Here are some pretty cases of the sweet relief which secures and delights the mothers and wives of the poor who have enlisted. We are told that “those the men leave behind will be cared for.” The completeness of this promise can only be understood when we follow the visitations of some of the good-gracious ladies who dispense the relief. A young wife is visited by a female inquisitor of the f Prince o Wales’s Fund.The poor woman stood byher table, and the inspector raked her fore and aft with extremely considerate questions about marriage her and her baby, and reached the height of her inquiry by asking : “Did you live a chaste life before you were married ?” concluding with the command, “on no account must you take in lodgers while our husband is away.” It isgood to have to record that the young woman replied sharply andcleared the inquisitor out of the house. Another “spy” entered the house of one had received some relief. “Look here, Mrs. —, she said, “this won’t do at all.That fire is too big. You must economise.” Ahawkish“lady”dragsa miserable, ragged woman into a boot store, the manageress of which is knownto her. With military emphasis, she said, “I want a pair of boots for this woman. Don’t keep us waiting; we must have them straight away, you know. I am an inspector for the Prince of Wales’s Fund. The boots must not cost more than five shillings.” The attendant declared that they sold none at sucha price, butshe remembered there were some shop-soiled t h a t could be sold so cheaply. These she offered. As an assistant fitted the boots, the inspector informed the who BUSINESS AS USUAL. Sir,-Is it a sure sign “culture” in a nation when it supof ports such organs o clap-trap and advertisement-mongerf ing as the “Daily Mail,” “John Bull,” and “News of the World,” for example, but deliberately boycotts THE NEW AGE? Is it not a criminal act of indecency to burn with indignation at thePrussian method of making“scraps of paper’’ of inconvenient treaties, when under our very noses contracts have been broken regularly since the war began by the very class that waxed most indignant when Jim Larkin pronounced his “to hell with contracts.”In the building particularly trade contracts have been “scrapped” by the bosses, and increased prices demanded by them solely because the manufacturersand the &erchants are greedily seeking more profit than usual ? Notwithstanding the gravityof the situation so far asour welfare as an Empire is concerned, there are instances cropping up every day which point to the fact that wherever possible the profiteers are extracting extra profit. For instance,sheet-glasshasrisenexactly 100 percent. since the war commenced, principally because the Belgian glassworks are at a complete standstill. The sheet-glass trade in this country being almost a monopoly (there are only a few manufacturers), and greed being now second nature to capitalism, it follows that it only required the devastation o Belgium to enable our glass lords to line their pockets f with super-profit. Not only is the price of sheet-glass doubled, butsmallordersonly will be booked, and immediatedelivery must be takenornot at all. Over 200 men from Northern a glassworks have joined the colours, but this is no justificationfor the price of this common materialbeing raised one farthing in price. No doubt the firm in question would glibly say that theshortage of men is the reason of the increase ; but there must be many glassworkers amongst the Belgian refugees now in this country,therefore why not givethem a chance of getting clear of the charity now administered to them? The deliberate way in which the timber merchants are carrying on their“HolyWar” in acrusade for 50 per cent. additional profit is little short of a national scandal. But does the Presspublish one line about such an important matter ? No; it attempts to draw the public of f the scent by preaching piffling pabulum about the danger of allowingaliens from the enemy countries to be at large.Perhapsthe fact thatfox-huntingis temporarily eclipsed has thrown some of our gentlemen profiteers out of employment, and, therefore, spy-hunting is the fashion for the time being. English “sport” must have an outlet somehow even in these dire days of world-conflict. It is not .a question of there being a scarcity of timber in the country, for there is sufficient stuff already in the yards to keep the demand supplied for at least a year; but it is simply and solely a bold attempt to secure a price that will double their profits in one year instead of having to wait two years for it in the usual way. Another example of “Business more than usual” occurs in the case of the Light Casting Section of the Cast Iron trade. ring This has raised the price of porcelainenamelled baths, the staple kind now universally used, by 20 per cent., simply because the German goods have ceased to be imported. These German baths were undoubtedly o equal quality to the home product; and the f manufacturers here had still a reasonable profit on their own goods when they sold their baths at the same rate as the Germans. Yet, in spite of the chorus of “leading articles” advocating “Business as Usual,”“patriotic” our f traders never lose an opportunity o grabbing more profit than usual.They are now busy shouting in public that they must capture German trade; their paid newspapers are urging the public to buy only British goods ; whilst in secret the same profit-grabbers are inducing people to pay more because British goods are so much superior to that of the Germans. Even in cases where there has been no actual increase in the cost of materials, some of the less Scrupulous aredisseminating the belief thatthere has 51 been an increase : with the view of collaringadditional profit, of course. a Can. there be much“culture”orChristianityabout people that tolerates such infamous deeds-merely the fringeof what is being done daily? No wonder we have been dubbed “a nation of shop-keepers” when at a crisis like thepresent “Business asUsual” is the battle-cry. Yet these are the acts of the shop-keeping profit-hunters in whose intereststhe war is beingwaged; for whose benefit conscription is now being advocated by the newspapers at the behest of the war-lords. This latest demand has, indeed, shown up the pretentious futility o the f leaders of Trade Unionism. Why, they have not the backbone of a worm, for even a worm will turn. Instead o turning themselves into recruiting agents in chief for f the Government, their business was to advocate a minimum payment tothe dependents of all who join the ranks; and a living wage for those about to be shot dead in the trenches. As it is, they have sold themselves for a mess of pottage to the enemy, and conscription is about to be crammed down their throats only to b e u s e dagainst themselves when the realwar begins, after the present crisis has passed into the pages o history. Such are the f fruits of Northcliffism ! No doubt thesite of Carmelite House has some remote connection with the bare-footed friars of old; and probably that is the reason why so many barefaced liescontinue to issue from its sewage works now. In any event, by the time this Potsdamned war is over it will be strange if the public has not discerned that it was waged not so much for King and Country but for B. W. ‘Northcliffe and Profit. *** piece work, when their earnings vary from 15s. to 30s. a week, according totheindividualskill of the worker. Seventeenbrancheshavealready been started,andinstructors trained in the workrooms at headquarters have been sent out. These instructors receive an adequate salary and have all their expenses paid. “on view” ; they are working too Our workers are not hard to fulfilnumerousorders both for home trade and for the Colonies. BEATRICE HARRADEN (Chairman of Press Committee). + * Y WOMEN’S EMERGENCY CORPS. Sir,--The letter in your issue of October 29th, entitled “A Sidelight,” is anonymous, and anonymous attacks are never worth answering. But as the letter contains definite questions about the activities of the Women’s Emergency Corps, as well asstrictures on individual officials who would seem to have incurred the writer’s displeasure, we shall be obliged if you will allow us space to answer the questions as briefly as possible. The first question is : “Where are the ‘many centres of industry’ that the Women’s. Emergency Corps are creating?’ We have (apart from the toy-making workrooms) two needlework rooms at our headquarters at Old Bedford College, and we have also needlework rooms giving employment to women in the following districts where branches of t h e . Women’s Emergency Corps have been started-Forest Hill andHonorOak,Kilburn, Norwood, Leyton, Balham, Ludgate Circus, Portman Square, Sloane Square, Walthamstow, Epsom, Streatham. Other branches are in process o formation. f Our Three Arts Department is employing twelve girls designing andstencillingChristmascardsandpainting lamp shades, and fifty more are employed in basket-making, mat-making, knitting and wood carving. Other branches inthe following towns have already opened workrooms :-Edinburgh, Liverpool, Southampton, Southport, Eastbourne, Bournemouth. Many other branches are either formed or in processof formation, and new workrooms are being opened each week. In reply to the second question, we refer your anonymous inquirer to the correspondence that took place in the daily Press when the National Food Fund was formed as an independent organisation. This useful work began as the Food Supply Department of the Women’s Emergency Corps, and with the consent of that Corps was, after some weeks, taken over by aseparate committee, underthe chairmanship o Lord Methuen, who f publicly acknowledged theorigin of the whole scheme. In factthis is printed on the National Food Fund’s notepaper. The third series of questions concerns our Toy-making Industry, and we see no reason to satisfy“Inquirer’s” curiosity about sales and profit, questions it is obviously unreasonable. to expect any business concern to answer after two months’ experience. And entirely unfounded is the statement that we have made any claim to have “captured German trade”-though paragraphs about our toymaking enterprisehaveappeared in variousnewspapers under the heading “Capturing German Trade,” a headline supplied by the newspapers in ordinary the way of journalism. To come to the facts on which “Inquirer” expresses doubt-we have in our toy workrooms at Old Bedford College 74, not “60” girls, learning toy-making. stronger. While they are being taught their trade these girls are paid 10s. a week; they are also given their omnibus fares ‘to and fromtheir homes and their tea, and 1d and 2d. lunches are supplied by the Women’s Emergency Corps kitchens. As soon as they are proficient they are put on to Sir,--In last week’s issue, the author of “The Ethics of War” seems to have been guilty of some minor inconsistencies. The article is manifestly an attack on Chrisdoes, as he frankly admits, tianity ; and all that the author is topointoutthe perfectly incontrovertiblefact that Christianityhasnot lived up toits ideals. Admitted: but this does not prove that Christianity is a fallacy. If there is such a thing as free will, surely men have the power to choose between following the precepts of a religion and failing to follow them. That menmay fail to follow them does not prove the fallacy of the religion, but thefallibility of man. I daresay-though I am perfectly ignorant of Hindooism-that Hindooism can furnishan interesting parallel of ideals unattained, though not unattainable. I bloody wars arethefruits f of European civilisation, these wars are not waged because of but in spite of the forces of Christianity; and if the British not because it is Government is corrupt itiscorrupt, Christian, but because it is Unchristian. Izzat” then remarks that “Christians have quoted the adage, “All is fair in love and war’ whenever they have to so.” But what found it necessary or suitabledo criminal, Christian or otherwise, may I ask, has not? “The war is being conducted as ruthlessly and mercilessly to-day as in pre-historic times. Is this not, mildly ? Even supposing we speaking, slightly exaggerative knew anything about pre-historic times-(which I presume we don’t)-the mere fact that so much limelight has been thrown on horrors which a century ago would have passed unnoticed as the natural and inevitable accompaniment of warfare is a sufficient proof of modern sensibility in the matter ; and if the unreasonable censorship of the Press. were removed, it might transpire that the so-called “outrages” are more often the result of accident than of wanton cruelty. Having been provoked thus far, I may as well proceed tothebitter end. “The Hordes of Changez Khan did not use bombs or mines!” Pooh ! Neither did Drake or of Hawkins,though there’s no knowingwhatengines destruction theymight have used hadthe opportunity offered. With all due respect to Changez Khan, I do not notice that Mohammedan nations show any scruple in taking up modern armaments. It is a p i t y , too, that such a thoroughly decent essay should e n d u p with incredible frivolities about foes sitting at the sametable,prepared to face one another on the morrow ; also the story of a magnanimous general who, when hehadsurrounded his enemy, refused to destroy them, and let them pass to the plain to ,fight an honourable battle on equal terms. I don’t know what the moral of this legend is supposed to be; whether it is proposed that we should conduct the present campaign on similar lines. I fancy it would leadto rather more unnecessary bloodshed that would be entirely pleasant to any of the parties concerned. What folly is this? If war is, a s your contributor points out, an opportunity for all the latent evil of the world to v e n t i t s e l f we can a t least be serious about it, and not convert i t into a silly and bloody i the magnanimous f general had regame. Perhaps quested hisenemytocapitulate,theissuemight have been more gratifying tothe members of both campsespecially, I might add, to the common soldiers. M. ALFRED SAYERS. *** THEETHICS OF WAR. NIETZSCHE. Sir,-I have been reading such interesting articles about the GermanEmperor and people beingdriven mad by Nietzsche. So I paid a little. visit to a chemist here who has lived long in Germany, and he was frightfully kind andinteresting,and told me all about it. Hesayshe knows for a fact that Nietzsche has been used throughout Germany for several years. It is a kind of brandy, only rather COMMON SENSE. * * * Sir,--Your correspondent, “Fairplay,” is remarkably certain American corresponill-informed. He mentions GERMAN KULTUR. 52 dents who denied that the Germans have committed atrocities.Hemighthaveadded,asfurther “evidence” of the gentleness of the Cultured Germans, the testimony of the notorious paid partisan--Sven Hedin. Against this cooked evidence, however, we have the sworn testimony of the Belgians themselves, several of them being men of the very highest standing, and generally recognised as absolutelytrustworthy. Two areJudges of the Belgian SupremeCourt. We have further evidence from well-known American writers, such as Richard Harding Davis and Mr. Powell, both of whom have witnessed these atrocities, and charge the Germans with “fighting foully.” It is denied by allthe Belgians and Americans who were on the spot when Louvain and Termonde were sacked that the Belgians fired on the Germans. English, as well as Americans and Belgians, offer similar evidence. Everybody but the Germans testify that one German regiment enteringLouvain firedby mistakeon another in the darkness. As to the bombardment of Rheims, General Joffre himself denied that the Cathedral was ever used as a military post, and showed that this was not the ,best nor even a desirable point for military observation. purposes. As to the Germans “paying for the goods they take,” we have evidence that their payments-when made-are usually in promissory notes--“good only if wewin”-as one German officer humorously remarked. Some payments have consisted of cinema tickets, “admit bearer to cinema”-the theatres of which they already had destroyed. No evidence has yet been given to show how much the German Crown ‘Prince or Prince Eitel ‘paid” for the furnitureandtapestriestheystole from variousFrench châteaux. Supposing, however, that some of the Louvain and Termonde citizens did happen to display their savagery, by shooting a few cultured German gentlemen whilst they were attempting to ravish their wives and daughters, is this a reasonable excuse why the Germans should systematically loot and burn the homes of hundreds of peaceful citizens; who did not even show resentmentagainst the invaders ? Supposing Rheims Cathedral was used for military observation purposes, would any civilised-to say nothing of cultured-nation destroy a universally admired historic monument, which was sheltering its own woundedsolely forthe off-chance of killing one or two of the enemy ? War is hell ! says “Fairplay”-as though this was an f excuse for the gratification o every vile German lust for the perpetration of rape, arson, theft, cruelty, and murder, upon helpless and innocent women and children! “Fairplay” objects to be called pro-German. I wonder if he knows what pro-German stands for ? At present, it standsfor one who cansympathisewith, entoura e or aid, by war o deed, the Germans in their avowed war r of plunder and aggression. The very adoption of the term “Fairplay” as a pseudonym for one who can denounce what-at worst--can only be termed exaggerations of the truth by certain English writers, but has no word of condemnation for the people who have startedthis “Hell,” and who have been deliberately preparing for a generationinvade subjugate neighbours’ to and their lands, shows himto be ignorant of the meaning of the term. The cool way in which a few persons who imagine themselves “fair” and“impartial”canpointouta few moats in the Allies’ eyes and quietly ignore the beam in the eyes of the Austro-Germans is amusing. We shall soon be told that Belgium started the War by invading Germany? That England tore up treaty the regarding Belgian neutrality and that the French sacked Louvain to the get Germans disliked ! Personally, I believe the Germans have committed all, andfar more, than the atrocitiesyet recorded. I believe this, first, beamong the cause of what I saw recently in Holland refugees; secondly, from information from friends who were eye-witnesses; thirdly, because I believe the German Army from the Kaiser and Crown Prince, down to the lowest subaltern, capable of any cruel, foul, and treacherous act that will help to win success for German arms. A s nation, a Germany is absolutely destitute of morality,chivalry,andnobility.Whendid the Germans ever champion the cause of a weak nation? When was Germany ever the friend of Liberty,?Theonly idea of fairplay conceivable tothe average German isthatin which hecan benefit himself. As G. K. Chesterton says -the culturedGerman doesn’t understand the policy of “give and take”-with him it is all “take.” A nationthat can sow mines broadcast in the way of‘ neutral vessels, that can employtrawlersflying neutral flags toshield its submarines, that hoists false colours, as for that can use Red Cross ambulancesdisguises machine guns, whose citizens willingly accept the hosptality and freedom granted by its neighbours for the purpose of spying on andultimatelydestroyingthem, that can instruct its soldiers in such treacherous acts as hoistingthe white flag merelyto deceive anddestroy their opponents, and adopting theUniforms, flags, and language of their enemies to gain an unfair advantage, in screening of their their firing with line the wives and children enemies, is entirely outside the pale of any form of civilisuch sation ! To call them“barbarians”isaninsultto races asthe North American Indians their in wildest moods ! The only suitable term t o properly characterise the German armies is the word criminals. The German troops have been deliberately educated inthe perpetration o crime. The oft quotedinstructions of the Kaiser f to army, his which afterwards led them to excel the Chinese in cruelty and vindictiveness, is but one instance of similar incitements. In the “Contemporary Review” Dr. Dillon gave us a verygraphicdescription of the deeds of these German devils in China in 1900,which ought to have opened the eyes of the civilised world to the realcharacter of t h e German people ! The recent spectacle of the Crown Prince and his brother Eitel, robbing the châteaux they formerly occupied is not calculated to keep their officers and privates honest. The Kaiser’s perjury regarding Russia land Belgium, the Prince of Bavaria’s command to his troops to “skin” the of German English, etc., etc.,further are examples culture. Contrastall this withKitchener’sinstructionsto our men to act as gentlemenunder all circumstances. Can “Fairplay” or anyother pro-German mentionasingle instance in which the Kaiseror his Generals ever exhorted or advised their men to show kindness or pity or chivalry towards non-combatants ? Three weeks ago, I met one of our ex-Naval’ Captains-a friend of Lord Kitchener, a former schoolmate of President Poincaré. Hehas been appointeda member of a Commission toinvestigatethese alleged atrocities.He numerous said : “I did not pay much attentiontothe allegationsaboutGermanoutrages, because they always crop up atall times during warfare. Having been i n several actions, I am somewhat hardened t o human suffermg. But recently, I had to visit many of the towns and villages through which the Germans had passed. It is impossible to exaggeratehorrible the atrocities and vandalism committed bythesemodern Huns. I saw the five bodies of Belgian children a few monthsold,with and six bayonet wounds, and women killed and outraged in every direction. Since then,” he added, “the barbarism of ,these fiends has been brought home to me even more acutely. My own nephew was wounded at Marne, and fell intothe enemy’s hands.Afterkeeping him a while, they cut his wrists, making his hands useless, and put out his eyes, and sent him away, sayingNow that you are no longer any use to the British Army, you may go!’” Personally, I feel more inclined ta. believe one of my own countrymen, such as this ex-Naval Captain, than any German or pro-German. No doubt, there are thousands of good and really cultured Germans who would denounce their own soldiers’ cruelties a n d thef perfidy and cowardliness o their Kaiser and his offi-cers as much as we do. But, unfortunately, these people are at present powerless whilst the majority of Germans are evidently on the side of their armies. P.S.--The Germans have erased the word “gentleman’” from their vocabulary. In thisthey show consistencyIt can have no meaning to them whatsoever. ARTHUR KITSON. *** Sir,-In Christian times priest the kept men’s consciences, Martin Luther and Protestantism formulated the: right of the individual conscience to be free; after which Public Opinion stepped into the place of the priest. PublicOpinion, likethe priest,interferes inmatters practical, artistic,andintellectual.Thepriest was at least expert vulgar and in psychology; Public Opinion is always mediocre. In thesedays when unity is at a premium tyrannies are more readily. endured than a few months ago. For instance, if, as is possible, when Parliament meets, a measure of conscription is passed by the State with the understanding that it is only to apply to the critical time AN ANALOGY. 53 of the war, many of US, violated in our instincts, will find reasoned condemnation. And it difficult toformulatea as myself, that ‘Public Opinion has crystallised in at all consider Public Opinion. that will be a confession, repugnant t o an anarchist such what we call the State, and that it might do very much worse. If we are to be governed at all, then we must be governed by the State.. And. by “governed” I mean “commanded.” The:State,as an embodiment of PublicOpinion, is analogous to the mediæval hierarchy, or Secular Clergy. But besides the Official Priesthood of the Middle Ages therewere other candidates for the posts of directors of human energy, some private, some semi-official. A good instance of the private kind in modern life is afforded by the employers of labour.The following case is notextreme. An employer of labourtoldme thatatthe beginning of the war he felt it his duty as a n employer of labour to recommend his employés to enlist. One young employé said, rightly or wrongly, that the war was no concernof his, and that he did not like Army men. Our employer of labour was terribly shocked at “such insensibility in a matter about which I felt so deeply,” but he did not sack his man. Continuing the conversation, he said it had “not seemed possible for him not to put his oint of view to his men.’’ I suggested that hehada perfect right to do that provided that he was willing to listen to theirs. Though a Protestant he still seemed to hanker after the belief that “ a s an employer of labour” he was somehow in the position of apriest. As I have said, the priest was a t least expert at his own business, but our employer of labour mastoo modest to say outright that he knew better than his men. No, it was not knowledge but status; in other words, another organ of Public Opinion is Money or Position.We all know that many employers of labourhave not stopped where my friend did. Thirdly,there was in mediæval times a sinister semi‘official body called “TheInquisition.” One great difference between this body and both the Secular and Monastic Clergy was that it not onlyundertook to order men’s souls, but consciously lied about the condition of those souls. The Confessor said, “If you did what yon say you did you’re damned unless you do what I tell you to,” but the Inquisitors said, “You did what we say you did, and we’will now torture you to make you, too, say you did it.” i n other words, the Inquisition was not content with meddling in men’s future; it claimed, too, to do what it liked with the facts of their past, with the end of influencingtheir souls; it had no scruplesabout the meansby ‘which this might be done. Sometimes it tortured its victims for ten years. Nom, we have in our midst just such a lying, prying, injurious body aswas the Inquisition. Like the Inquisition, it is semi-official, like the Inquisition it influences it poisons the official priesthood ; unlike the Inquisition the lifeof the whole nation, though like it, it definitely the Harmsworth Press, strikes at sections. I refer to which has no scruples about the means by which its ends facts. may be achieved. It alters notonlyopinionsbut If the public does not belie\-e that the national safety can ’only be secured by wrecking shops in Deptford, it is capable of extorting a confession from the public that it does believe either by manufacturing the evidence or by insinuating that the evidence is there. It is an organ of Public Opinion, of that Public Opinion which is to a collection of Private Opinions what Mob Psychology isto the emotions of the individual members of the crowd. We hare been tortured by this creation of the Public Malefactor for more than ten years now, but it is at atime like the present, when we particularly want some centra! authority and no other, that we particularly revolt against its unasked-for impudence. Who is, or was, Lord Northcliffe, that me should endure to feel that any measure of Public Safetyfrom Conscription to the arrest of a German barber may have been due to his impertinence acting on official sensitiveness ? If it is true, as Mr. Warnock says, thathishirelings have been constrainingprivate individuals to dismiss their employés, citizens of the State, then it seems to me he has been usurping the Sovereign authority, and is guilty of treason against the State. Here irresponsible tyranny has shown its face with a vengeance. Yet, tomake of him anything dignified is a mistake. What is wanted, ifwe are to get some cleanness into our country after thewar,is for thegreat body of decent people to whom his press is repellent to unite in a league pledged to work for the slow elimination of his influence, so that ultimately not his press only but the whole press which he infected has may revert to the comparative decency of former times. I am bound to say that no press is ever likelyto be guiltless. THE NEW AGE is literally than art t h e only publication dealing with matters other which, inspite of faults,has,nevertheless, the supreme merit of allowing free expression, which, that is, does not But if capitalistic newspapers are never likelyto do this, they can at least be made comparatively decent, and if they cannot be made decent they can be made comparatively harmless. l n former times they had not an influence so utterly out o f proportion; their increased influence is due to Lord Northcliffe’s methods. An attack on the whole press as the press is only possible by permeation, but an attack on the most powerful, the most injurious of pressmen, is possible by direct action. The “national crisis” is supposed to have revived us spiritually; let us prove the supposition true. it should not be impossible to collect the names of a thousand persons who should guarantee never to buy a Harmsworth publication,and to induce five friendsto do the same, these five to induceafurther five, and so on. It should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to organise a fund sufficient for the hire of lecture halls in which the Harmsworth record might be competently presented to audiences admitted free. Mr. Warnock’s suggestionsare excellent ; inquiries into fact should be made ; but when made they should not waste the sweetness of their results in solitude. Let there be a central clearing-house for facts ; let them be tabulated and indexed ; let them swell till their bulk impresses even the public. LEONARD INKSTER. *** THE CONDEMNED SCHOOLS. Sir,-About a fortnight ago, a deputation from the National Workers’ War Emergency Committee waited upon Mr. Lloyd George to express disappointment the feltby the committee at the Chancellor’s speech to the representatives of the municipalauthoritiesrather more than a month ago. In that speech Mr. Lloyd George had said that the Government were not prepared to encourage public bodies toundertake works of publicutility, unless distress were insistentinthe locality. This distinctly damped the hopes which had been raised by the promises of the Government atthe commencement of the war. The by no means reassuring speech of the Chancellor to the recent deputation from the National Workers’ War Emergency Committee should be read by all who wish to see the present volume of unemployment kept as low as possible, and who wish that SocialistandTrade Union organisations should be beforehand in grappling with the still greater unemployment which we know will be with us when the war is over. It is clear that whatever the Government does will only be in response to the insistent pressure of a strong public opinion. No doubt the National Workers’ War Emergency Committee will show by increased activity thatthey fully recognise this fact. The speech gave no hope that plans for improving housing will receive financial support from the Treasury, although at the same time Mr. Lloyd George acknowledged that there would undoubtedly be increased unemployment in the building trades. Recent returns, notably in the Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Unions, show this to be already the case. I find that Mr. Lloyd George’s speeches have had a file memratherdispiriting effect upon thoserankand bers of the working-class organisations who are doing the arduous educational work necessary in order to compel (I use the term advisedly)their “leaders” to take action inthe direction of securing the rebuilding cf the condemned elementary schools in London. May I be allowed to point out that there is no need for discouragement ? For the schools in question, though publicly supported,areprivately owned and controlled by religious denominations. According tothe Education Act of 1903, by which the support of such schools was taken over by the L.C.C., the managers are responsible for the buildings. Therefore the duty of rebuilding the con* demned schools devolves upon the wealthy religious bodies which own and control them. A small proportion of the condemned schools are Roman Catholic schools; the overwhelming majority belong to the Church of England, as and, far those as schools are concerned, thereis no reason why the work of rebuilding should not at once be takeninhand by the National Society, a powerful organisation which attends to the education politics of the Established Church. As the “‘Daily Mail’ Church Year Book ” informs us, the National Society has an income of £20,000 a year, and has spent £1,500,000 in educating the children of the poor in the principles of the Established Church. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the society has its extensive 54 printing done b non-union labour. Its leaders car, speak with first-{and knowledge of the wealthy educational endowments which have been stolen from the poor, and also on the movement against popular control o education, which culminated in the destruction of the f School Boards. And su pose an altogether impossible of supposition!) that the funds the society proved unequal to the “intolerable of replacing the constrain” demned Church of England schools by up-to-date school buildings, there then is the sister organisation, also wealthy, and commonly known as the C.O.S. This society, according to the high authority of Prince Arthur of Connaught, has accomplished the great task of ‘‘putting an end to the crowd of impostors who would rather do anythingbut work.” It alsospends £24,000 a year largely in training secretariesand officers, who, together f with “its greatbody o unpaid workers,’’ are, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, ‘‘topublic bodies a guide, a stay,and a force,” co-operating in the adf ministration o legislation to which the organisation has been opposed at the outset. N.B.-The C.O.S. has been a guide, a stay, and a force” to the L.C.C. in the feeding of hungry school children. A democratic system of education such as we must aim at, in the great work of reconstruction which lies before us, has no room for either of those two societies, however powerful they may be, by reason of great wealth, patronage, and high political influence. Their funds should, however, forthwith be “commandeered” for the rebuilding of the condemned schools. I submit, also, thattheParliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, the National Workers’ Emergency Committee, and the Building Trades’ Federation should send a deputation to the L.C.C. and the Board of Education,and demand that public financial support shall be withheld from the 124 condemned schools until those responsible for their scandalous condition have been pinned down to a definite undertaking to discharge their legal obligations. Trade Unionist and Socialist “leaders” should now break the long silence they maintained have on the question of the condemned schools, otherwise we shall policy differs begin to wonder how far, if atall,their from that of thehigh ecclesiastical forces that control them. I sincerely hope that readers of THE NEW will help inthetask of compelling those “leaders” to speak. These schools concern the Trade Union movement as a whole, for elsewhere than in London are many schools which are or ought to be condemned, and for the rebuilding of which local authorities should even now be preparing. I shouldlike,withyourpermission,to refer inthis connection to one othermatter. As one who holds that every woman shouldhaveavote,and that the emancipation of women and of labour should go hand in hand, I have been more than pleased to find thatin many branches of Trade Unions Suffragist speakers have been made welcome as lecturers. And I have hoped that the many highly educated women in the Suffrage movement would in the future be a forward force in the workingclass education movement. It has therefore been a great disappointment that the in matter of the condemned schools the various sections of the women’s movement have been silent, although among the leaders are many highly educated women who have also the high political influence which wealth and social position can secure women, even without the vote. Those women arejust now active on relief committees, etc., and would doubtless subscribe to the statement that work is better than charity, and that public authorities should meet the unemployment consequent on the war by settingon foot works of public utility. By taking a bold, uncompromising line in the fight against unemployment, and also in the fight to secure for the workers’ children the wellbuilt, well-equipped schools which Suffragist leaders know are considered an essential part of the education of the children of their own class, the Suffragists would be helping to make irresistible their claim in the support of organised labour in the fight for the political emancipation of women. And yet, at atime when, according to a Governmentreport, little girls in a London school spend school recreation time i n foul-smelling w.c.’s, Miss Christabel Pankhurst goes to America, saying there is nothing for her to do, and “law-abiders” are as silent Labour leaders. as M. BRIDGES ADAMS. Bebel House Working Women’s College. Catholic. This veryhoneststatement will certainly, as he hopes, facilitate our little discussion, all the more so as it is quite in agreement with my former opinion as to. his religious position. This position-it mayinterest Mr.Cowley to hear-is. the exact opposite of that once taken up by Jean Jacques Rousseau. In a letter of July, 1764,the famous reformer writes to the Marquise de Créqui : “I am toogood a Christianever to be a Catholic.” Mr. Cowley pluckily reverses the positions and practically states: “I am too good a Catholic ever to be a Christian.” May X now assure Mr. Cowley that I have much more sympathy with his view than with that of Rousseau ? But just because I have sympathy, I must draw his attention to a possible danger. Mr. Cowley may insist as much as he likes upon his Church, his tradition, his “living creed of 1914years,” the good Christion h lu pauvre Jean Jacques will always rush in and disturb his peace by telling him : “We don’t want your Catholicism-we want Christianity !” And if Mr. Cowley should listen, not if he should prefer to stand up for tradition, he might experience some unpleasantness, a s did the French aristocrats, who likewise adhered to tradition, but had to give it up, together with their heads, under the guillotine-and that amongst the infernal applause of Jean Jacques’ disciples ! I am sorry for many people in this world, but most of all for the Catholic. He has to choose between that devil. Nietzsche and the deep sea of Christianityandhe does not like either. May I persuade Mr. Cowley to “chum up” a little bit with the devil, who is quite a useful companion, who veryoften,as Goethe hastaught us, is a gentleman, and who, in any case, is not quite as black a s the Middle Ages have painted him ? OSCAR LEVY. *** AGE Sir,-Newspaper controversy seems full of dangers and surprises, and one may learn incredible revelations about. oneself after a single letter to THENEW AGE. Thus Dr. Levy tells your readers of the “objections” which I raised against his appeal for justice to the Germans in England; he puts a nicely composed speech into my mouth, and afterdetailinghis life-long persecution,heanswers the imaginary speech of mine by an interesting but irrelevant argument that I shallnot follow. I havetherightto protestagainst thissmallthough harmlesslibelbyreminding Dr. Levy that I explicitly approved of his appear by the words, “and quite rightly so,” which I assure him were not ironical. But while approving of his appeal, m y main purpose was to draw from it, and other incidents referred to, a moral that would reveal, as I thought, a worthy basis for Christianity, namely, the sensitive, sympathetic and pacific disposition. I was looking about for a rational explanation of the Christian antagonism to war which both Dr. Levy and I observe, and I think I found‘ it. Your correspondent Pteleon’s contribution could not have been more appropriate. I recall the fact that it was Dr. Levy’s exposition of the originalChristian attitudetowards war that led me to mention Nietzsche by way of contrast. In doing so I never hinted that he was “a brute,” or that hisphilosophy was “pure egotism” or his superman “a super-beast.” It would, therefore, have pleased me if Dr.Levy had paid less attention to what I did not say. I n view of the rather contemptuous “Jack Johnson” which he discharges I ask in my direction from his closing paragraphs, may Dr. Levy to remember that hehas issuedcomplete a English translation of Nietzsche which is possibly within f my reach?The caricatures o thepulpit and the Press have no interest for me. My original plea was for a discussion on the Christian ‘view of life, especiallyregarding war. Mr. Cowley has has wriggled out on a formally withdrawn and Dr. Levy side issue. I am not going to run about after the rather inconsequent generalisations contained in Dr. Levy’s closing sentences, in spite of their interest. LOFTUS HARE. WILLIAM * * * *** Sir,--I amgladto see that Mr. Cowley will now renounce the name of Christian and describe himself as a CHRISTIANITY. Sir,-This is not the first timeMr. Holbrooke has written on the apathy felttowards English music, and though I do not intend contradicting him in the assumptions he it is I think people makes, I will try and tell him why will notpatroniseBritish music. X realise, Mr. Editor, that say to anything good of Germany and German “goods” at thismoment might bring me a load of trouble, and you, too, for editing, but if I insist on saying that German music is, on the whole, more pleasant and sweeter will be so than British music, I thinkmy crime not terrible as it would be if I tried to compare any other “goods” of both countries and favoured that of Germany. BRITISH MUSIC versus GERMAN MUSIC. 55 I remember some years ago when Elgar’s Violin Concerto was first announced, how the“Telegraph”critic compared it with the Concertos of Beethoven and Tchaikowski, and went so far as to say that of the slow move’mns e t , Elgar’s was superior in more ways than one. It was more sublime, more masterful in composition, and would certainly create for Elgar what the other Concertos had created for their respective composers. Kreisler and one or two others played it for a time, and now I never hear of Elgar’s Concerto. The same applies to his symphonies. Well, I willexplain,and my point o view I have found to be that of a good many.We f prefer the old masters because the new are helplessly out of it. I could listen to asonata of Beethoven or Mozart or Chopin because the music has just that effect that the music of our British composers will never have, excepting Sir C. Stanford’s, when heimitatesBrahms, and I prefer pure Brahms to Brahms à la Stanford. The music written by our men leaves such little effect that we forget music and composer, too. Perhaps Mr. Holbrooke will call me a snob, but the fact remains, whether we are snobs or not, thatto music-lovers thesimplicityand grandeur alike of German music are nowhere to be found in British music. Does Mr. Holbrooke really think that I visit Queen’s Hall to give Elgar “a chance,”or that not. ‘A serious others would do the same ? I think student ormusician will always prefer Beethoven’s 1st Symphony to Elgar’s 1st Symphony, not to mention Beethoven’s 5th, and precisely for those reasonsI mention: one has breadth,feelingand fire, theother leaves us where abadlywritten poemwould-indifferent. H. I , . *** THEDIARY OF ARECRUIT. Sir,--Let me give one instance of the vvretched confusion here at ‘camp. Forseveral weeks we have all been sleeping thirty in a room meant for twelve, until a day or two ago by the merebringingintouse of the vacated married quarters we were sorted out into rooms of eight-. Why wasn’t this done weeks ago, when themarried quarters were first vacated ? Perhapsone of these days some arrangement will be made whereby the men will nothave to await each meal in alargequeuefor twenty or thirty minutes. I tremblesuggest to that double the quantity of little camp-kitchens would lessen the labour of preparing meals, perhaps and the overworked cookhouse staff might be increased by paid cooks from outside and by the enlistment of old soldiers of no other militaryuse. In a month or two some sucharrangementswill certainly be made;untilthen poor recruitsmust wait i n the rain,bolt down theirdinners,andrush offimmediately on parade fatigue-parties. and Well, fatigues usually account daily for more than a quarter of the men in training.Barelyany system of rotation is used, so that I have known men put on petty fatigue duties day after day for three weeks at stretch.ma The justice of this no-soldiering takes all the heart out of them. They complain their to troop-sergeant,asks them, he and “DO draw your money on Fridays?” “Yes.” Well, then, do what you’re told to do ! ” And it is true that most fatigues are light labour.The all-day fatigues could be done often in a couple of hours, but why should the men go to the trouble to do them well and speedily when only another fatigue awaits them? Everydayat middaystables the quarter-past twelve. But the work is finished about a men are kept on the move till one, simply that they shall not goaway before time. In fact, thearmy which in peace-time is a guild is now (I speak of thetraining centres) almostacentre of wagery. In peace-time every man has his work; he knowswhathe has to do, when and how he has to do it, andwhy he has to do it, and he In peace-time, from all accounts, the does it with a will. army must be a perfect city of refuge for wage-slaves. I shall never again pity the snivellings of young journalists, that they must live andso must write for the gutterpress. I shall send them to the nearest recruiting-station, preferably to joincavalry a regiment. But I warn all guildsmen not to expect anything like the proper spirit in Kitchener’s Army. The advanced recruits are certainly being trained ; but more than half of the men are at present superfluous. Certainly, when that advanced part is read for the front, others will be taken in hand, but these others are now almost wage-slaves, selling their labour for seven shillings pocket-money a week. The beauty of the true Army is that it seeks to make men by means of things, not to manufacture things by the use of men. But, as I am pointing out, the spirit of most of the arrangements in the present training camps is quite contrary; the men are there, keep ’em on the move, find something for ’em to do until we are free to train ’em. Is that right? Is that fair to the volunteers? For Heaven’s sake, put the superfluous thousands on a waiting-list, give each man of them fifteen shillings a week retaining-pay(about half hispresent cost to the State), and send him home until he can be trained! I need hardly say that all the men bitterly resent their treatment, but how gladly did they once a n d wouldthey again offer themselves tothe army-themselves‘, heart their labour only. Yet, with all these and soul, not superfluous thousands, they talk of conscription ! The miserable attempts to force inoculation on the recruits continue. It is still voluntary-if you do not wish But I trust that the steady refusal to go to the front! of the more sensible men will force the War Office either to order compulsory inoculation and be publicly crushed or to rescind the last order that only inoculated men shall go tothe front. parade A was held the other dayto separate the menwilling to be injectedand those who were notwilling.A comrade asked me beforehand if I were willing. “Of course not,” said I, “don’t all the old soldiers tell us that almost every man in the Boer War that was inoculated and then got enteric died of it, often only six monthsafterbeingdone?” “Yes,” said he, “but that was fifteen years ago. Just think how the stuff has advancedby this time.”“What,” said I, “does it kill in three months now?” Then we went on parade. Of our t r o o p thirty-six men, twenty-threeagreed, but thirteen refused to be inoculated. Enter Grinder Gubbins, who hears the news and opens fire. G. G. (booming at the gallant thirteen, who were drawn up in front) : “Now, then,thosethirteenmen who are (Not not willing to go to the front,prove!” a man moves his arm!) ONEOF THE 13: “Not, ‘not willing to go to the front,’ sir, but not willing to be inoculated.’’ understand men. you Here G. G. : “Really, I can’t you are willing to take more risks than you need. When everyArmy doctor and everycivilian doctor tells you that inoculation is good, you deliberately go and pit yourselves againsttheir experience. I don’t know why the Hell it isn’t made compulsory. You men seem to imagine (etc., etc., for five loudminutes. Then- Well, now, those of you who have listened to me, and changed moves ! Rebuff for their minds, prove!” (Notaman G . G., who sends the recalcitrants’ names to the Colonel). About a third of our whole squadron, so far as I can discover, refused to be inoculated, and quite a number of the poor devils that were done aregoingtorefusethe second time, ten days after the firstidiotictorture. To the gallant twelve of my troop that stood for sense and liberty, good luck, and a safe return from the trenches ! Twelve-for I am no longer of the Army. M right eye, slightly bruised in boyhood, has sent me after my discharge. I had promised myself that I should once more be allowed to shoot from my left shoulder and with my left eye, and the doctor at Whitehall encouraged me. But it is not allowed, and so I am thrown back into civilian life. CHARLES BROOKFARMER. * * * “THE Sir,--I regret that I cannot renew my subscription to deplore the malignant spirit THE NEW AGE. I deeply displayed by you in yourleadingarticles.The British Empire is fighting for its very existence. It is not a time criticism and the malicious stirring up for argument is in great need of men, of classhatred.Thecountry and has no use for scribblers, however clever. Your intelligence would be farbetter employed in helpingthe countryand otherwise remaining silent. We all know that in such a fearful crisis certain things go wrong, but it does not help to put them right when meddling critics poke their dirty fingersinto the sores. Go and help, if you can. Give an example of faith and courage and &votion. Forget your foolish self-conceit. There is, as it were, a mad. dogloose in Europe. Go and help to hammer it instead of complacently flattering yourself that the “pen is mightier than the sword.” It may be in noble hands, but even then it is not so useful a weapon as astick against a mad dog. Reform yourself, and, perhaps, when you have gone through the fire you may be found worthy of helping to reform our social constitution. All you show now is a blind malignant hatred of all classes other No good ever came of hate. than the “plebs.” I am very sorry to feel like this about THE NEW AGE, from whom I had expected better things. Florence. ARTHUR HIGHT. F,. N E W AGE.” and Subscriptions to THE NEW AGE are now at the following rates :United Kingdom. Abroad. One Y ear ... 28s. 0d. ... 30s. 0d. Six Months ... 14s. 0d. ... 15s. 0d. Three Months ... 7s. 0d. ... 7s. 6d. A i ! communications relative t o T H E NEW A G E should be addressed t o THE N E W AGE, 38, C u r s i t o r S t r e e t , E.C. .