iderations, it will last years. In spite of my repugnance, I
have, therefore, been obliged to choose the former system."

It is hard to believe that a document of this kind could be written by
any one that was not far gone in lunacy, but in any case, I repeat it
is to be hoped that St. Helena will not be desecrated by sending him
to that hallowed abode.

It is never a difficult performance to become involved in war, and it
is always a tax on human genius to find a decent way out of it;
whether it be honourable or dishonourable does not matter to those who
believe in conflict as a solution of international disputes. History
can safely be challenged to prove that anything but wild wrath and
ruin is the unfailing outcome of war to all the belligerents, whether
few or many. More often than not, it is brought about by the exulting
chatter of a few irrepressible and also irresponsible individuals who
have military or political ambitions to look after, and no other
faculty of reason or vocabulary than the gibberish "that war will
clear the air." They ostentatiously claim a monopoly of patriotism;
and convey their views on war matters with a blustering levity which
is a marvel to the astonished soul. Their attitude towards human
existence is that you cannot be a patriot or create a great nation
unless you are bellicose and warlike.

This was the deplorable condition of mind that involved us in the wars
subsequent to the French Revolution. But the diplomatists (if it be
proper to call them such) and the oligarchy were responsible for the
ruptures at that period, and certainly not the general public. In
fact, it is doubtful whether the _general public_ are ever in favour
of breaking the peace. A minority may be, but they are the noisy and
unreflecting section. There is a wide difference between the
Napoleonic wars and that which was waged against the civilized world
by the German Kaiser and his military myrmidons, who have acted
throughout like wild beasts. There never has been perpetrated so
atrocious a crime as the deliberately planned military outrage on the
peace of the world.

The brief comparison between Kaiser William and Napoleon Bonaparte is
that the one, like Frederick, the hero of Thomas Carlyle, is a
shameless traitor to every act of human decency, and the other, in
spite of what biassed writers have thought it their duty to say of
him, was an unparalleled warrior-statesman, and his motives and
actions were a