we ought to make common cause in our dealings
with backward races of the world_!'"

The quotations speak for themselves. Note the policing of the "backward
races." The Colonies are not in favour. Mr. Angell writes: "What in the
name of common sense is the advantage of conquering them if the only
policy is to let them do as they like?" (p. 92.) South Africa occasions
bitter reflections: "The present Government of the Transvaal is in the
hands of the Boer Party." (p. 95.) And he warns Germany, that, supposing
she wishes to conquer South Africa, "she would learn that the policy
that Great Britain has adopted was not adopted by philanthropy, but in
the hard school of bitter experience." (p. 104.) We believe him, and we
may have to teach a lesson or two in the same school. It may be noted in
passing Mr. Angell gives Ireland the honour of a reference. In reply to
a critic of the _Morning Post_, who wrote thus: "It is the sublime
quality of human nature that every great nation has produced citizens
ready to sacrifice themselves rather than submit to external force
attempting to dictate to them a conception other than their own of what
is right." (p. 254.) Mr. Angell replied: "One is, of course, surprised
to see the foregoing in the _Morning Post_; the concluding phrase would
justify the present agitation in India, or in Egypt, or in Ireland
against British, rule." (p. 254.) Comment is needless. The reading and
re-reading of this book forces the conclusion as to its sinister
design. Once that design is exposed its danger recedes. There is one at
least of the "backward races" that may not be sufficiently alive to
self-interest, but may for all that upset the capitalist table and
scatter the deal by what Ruskin described in another context as "the
inconvenience of the reappearance of a soul."

III

We must not fail to distinguish the worth of the best type of
anti-militarist and to value the truth of his statement. It is curious
to find Mr. Angell writing an introduction to M. Novikow's book, for M.
Novikow's position is, in our point of view, quite different. He does
not draw the fine distinction of policing the "backward races." Rather,
he defends the Bengalis. Suppose their rights had never been violated,
he says: "They would have held their heads higher; they would have been
proud and dignified, and perhaps might have taken for their motto, _Dieu
et mon droit_." ("War and Its Alleged Benefits," p. 12.) He can be
i