neither the time nor the place, nor have
I the knowledge and ability for a discussion of this much-debated
question. Nor will I reveal my own private views, except in so far as to
say that I agree with the majority. But, as the question cannot be
ignored, I should like to say that I hold firmly the conviction that all
trade should be carried on for the mutual advantage of the parties
engaged. The old fable of AEsop may be quoted, which relates to a quarrel
between the different members of the body. Every one of us can be, and
should be, helpful to every other, independent of nation, country, and
creed. That is, I am sure, what lies on the conscience of each one of
us, as an ultimate end to be struggled for, although perhaps by many
considered unattainable.
For the same kind of reason, it appears to me that we all think that
peace is a blessing, and war a curse. For under peace commerce and
industry prosper; science and the arts flourish; friendships are made
and adorn the amenities of life. Moreover, our religious traditions in
all Christian countries, and in some non-Christian ones like China,
influence us to believe that war is wrong, indefensible, and, in the
present year of our Lord, an anachronism.
We imagined, perhaps not most, but many of us, that no important
European nation thought differently. Your leading Liberal paper, The
Manchester Guardian, on July 22, 1908, wrote, "Germany, though the most
military of nations, is probably the least warlike"; and this doubtless
represented the views of the majority of Englishmen. Some of us knew
better. I have, or had, many German friends; we have lived for many
years on a footing of mutual kindliness; but it was impossible to
disregard the signs of the times. The reason of this war is at bottom,
as we have now discovered, the existence of a wholly different ideal in
the Germanic mind from that which lies at the base of the Latin,
Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, or Scandinavian nations. Such a statement as this is
sweeping; it can be illustrated by a trivial tale. In 1912 an
international scientific congress met at Berlin; I was a member.
Although the conventional language was German, in compliment to our
hosts, it turned out that in the long run all discussions were conducted
in French. After such a sitting, the members separated, the German
committee remaining behind for business purposes. The question of
language was raised, I think by a Dutchman, in the corridor. Of the
repre
|