{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20435/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20435","id":"gutenberg_20435","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20435","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Profiteering","War -- Economic aspects","World War I"],"text":"Produced by Irma Spehar, Janet Blenkinship and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  THE WORLD IN CHAINS\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  But should we stay to speak, noontide would come,\n  And thwart Silenus find his goats undrawn,\n  And grudge to sing those wise and lovely songs\n  Of Fate, and Chance, and God, and Chaos old,\n  And Love, and the Chained Titan's woeful doom,\n  And how he shall be loosed, and make the earth\n  One brotherhood....\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n  THE WORLD\n  IN CHAINS\n\n  SOME ASPECTS OF WAR AND TRADE\n\n  BY JOHN MAVROGORDATO\n  M.A.\n\n  LONDON: MARTIN SECKER\n  NUMBER FIVE JOHN STREET ADELPHI\n\n\n\n\n _First Published 1917_\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n  IN MEMORIAM AMICORUM\n  _R. F. C. GELDERD SOMERVELL\n  IVAR CAMPBELL: T. R. A. H.\n  NOYES: J. W. BAILEY_\n  QVI ANTE DIEM PERIERVNT\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nNote\n\n\n_There may be some exaggeration in this book. I firmly believe that\nEngland and her Allies entered this War with the noblest intentions. If\nI have done less than justice to these, it is because my chief purpose\nin this essay has been to express my equally firm belief that all these\nfine emotions have been and are being exploited by the basest forms of\nImperialism and Capitalism._\n\n  _J. M._\n\n  _January 1st, 1917._\n\n\n\n\n  Contents\n\n\n  CHAPTER I\n\n  THE MASSACRE OF COLLEAGUES,                                 3\n\n  THE WIDENING SPHERE OF MORALITY,                            4\n\n  THE RECEDING GOD,                                           6\n\n  THE PHILOSOPHER LOOKS AT SOCIETY,                           8\n\n  HOMO HOMINI LUPUS,                                          8\n\n  TRIBE AGAINST TRIBE,                                       10\n\n  THE CITY STATE,                                            12\n\n  THE NATIONS OF EUROPE \"FERAE NATURAE,\"                     14\n\n  THE CONVENIENCE OF DIPLOMACY,                              15\n\n  A NOTE ON DEMOCRACY,                                       18\n\n  DIPLOMACY NOT BAD IN ITSELF,                               19\n\n  MANNERS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR MORALS,                          21\n\n  WAR A MORAL ANACHRONISM,                                   21\n\n\n  CHAPTER II\n\n  THE ARMAMENT RING,                                         27\n\n  EUGENICS?                                                  29\n\n  PATRIOTISM,                                                31\n\n  THE MORAL TEST,                                            36\n\n  TRADE,                                                     39\n\n  TRADE IN TIME OF PEACE,                                    42\n\n  DUTIES OF COMMERCE TO THE STATE,                           44\n\n  RESTRICTED SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDING TO\n  RESTRICTED SPHERE OF MORALITY,                                 51\n\n\n  CHAPTER III\n\n  TRADE DURING THE WAR,                                      57\n\n  TRADE LIVES ON INCREASING DEMAND,                          65\n\n  WAR A FORM OF DESTRUCTION,                                 66\n\n  WAR STANDS TO BENEFIT NEUTRAL AS WELL AS BELLIGERENT\n  NATIONS BUT NOT TO THE SAME EXTENT,                            69\n\n  THE GREATER THE CAPITAL, THE GREATER THE WAR\n  PROFIT,                                                        71\n\n  THE BLESSINGS OF INVASION,                                 72\n\n  THE LUXURY TRADES DON'T DO SO BADLY,                       74\n\n  TRADE PROFITS IN WAR NOT SHARED BY THE NATION\n  BUT CONFINED TO EMPLOYERS,                                     77\n\n  TRADE PROFIT AND NATIONAL LOSS,                            82\n\n  APPENDIX: SOME TYPICAL WAR PROFITS,                       125\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV\n\n  DIALECTICS ROUND THE DEATH-BED,                            89\n\n  GERMAN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR,                         90\n\n  THE VALUE OF GERMAN CULTURE,                               95\n\n  THE MANUFACTURE OF HATRED,                                102\n\n  IMPERIALISM THE ENEMY,                                    107\n\n  POSSIBLE OBJECTS OF WAR,                                  112\n\n  PHYSICAL FORCE IN A MORAL WORLD,                          118\n\n  IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALISM THROUGH WAR AND TRADE\n  THE ENEMIES: SOCIALISM TO THE RESCUE,                         122\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\n  [Greek: moros de thneton ostis ekporthon poleis\n  naous de tumbous th, iera ton kekmekton,\n  eremiadous autos oleth usteron.]\n\n  Euripides: Tro. 95.\n\n\n\n\nSec.1\n\nThe Massacre of Colleagues\n\n\nThe existence of war in the modern world is primarily a question for the\nmoral philosopher. It may be of interest to the anthropologist to\nconsider war as a gallant survival with an impressive ritual and a code\nof honour curiously detached from the social environment, like the Hindu\nsuttee; or with a procedure euphemistically disguised, like some\nchthonic liturgy of ancient Athens. But it is a problem too broad for\nthe anthropologist when we consider that we have reached a stage of\ncivilisation which regards murder as the most detestable of crimes and\ndeprives the murderer of all civil rights and often even of the natural\nright to live: while in the same community the organised massacre of our\ncolleagues in civilisation is not only tolerated but assumed to be\nnecessary by the principal expositors of law and religion, is the\nscientific occupation of the most honoured profession in the State, and\nconstitutes the real sanction of all international intercourse.\n\n\nSec.2\n\nThe Widening Sphere of Morality\n\nThe existence of war stimulates the astonished watcher in the tower of\nivory to examine the development, if any, of human morality; and to\nformulate some law of the process whereby political man has been\ndifferentiated from the savage.\n\nMorality being a relation between two or more contracting parties, he\nwill notice that the history of mankind is marked by a consistent\ntendency to extend this relation, to include in the system of\nrelationships more numerous and more distant objects, so that the moral\nagent is surrounded by a continually widening sphere of obligations.\n\nThis system of relationship, which may be called the moral sphere, has\ngrown up under a variety of influences, expediency, custom, religious\nemotion and political action; but the moral agents included in it at any\ngiven time are always bound to each other by a theoretical contract\ninvolving both rights and duties, and leading each to expect and to\napply in all his dealings with the others a certain standard of conduct\nwhich is approximately fixed by the enlightened opinion of the majority\nfor the benefit of the totality.\n\nThe moral sphere then is a contractual unit of two or more persons who\nagree to moderate their individual conduct for their common good: and\nthe State itself is only a stage in the growth of this moral unit from\nits emergence out of primitive savagery to its superannuation in\nultimate anarchy, commonly called the Millennium. The State indeed is a\nmoral sphere, a moral unit, which has long been outgrown by enlightened\nopinion; and the trouble is that we are now in a transition stage in\nwhich the boundaries of the State survive as a limitation instead of\nsetting an ideal of moral conduct.[1]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: This conception of the gradually extending and still to be\nextended sphere of morality, or from another aspect of law, was implied,\nI think, by Lord Haldane in his Address on Higher Nationality. (_The\nConduct of Life, and Other Addresses_, p. 99.)\n\nIn this address Lord Haldane distinguished in the State three sanctions\nof conduct.\n\n     1. Law.\n\n     2. The Moral Sanction, Kant's Categorical Imperative \"that rules\n     the private and individual conscience, but that alone.\"\n\n     3. The force of social habit or _sittlichkeit_, \"less than legal\n     and more than merely moral, and sufficient in the vast majority of\n     the events of daily life, to secure observance of general standards\n     of conduct without any question of resort to force.\" The Lord\n     Chancellor adds, \"If this is so within a nation, can it be so as\n     between nations?\"\n\nBut although Lord Haldane distinguishes three sanctions of conduct, the\nresultant line of conduct is one. And it seems to me unimportant to\nanalyse the sanctions if we can only estimate the sum of their\nobligations. It is this totality of obligations, the whole\nsystematisation of conduct in human life, that in my adumbrated analysis\nI call the moral sphere.\n\nCuriously enough Lord Haldane was hounded from the Government on the\nparadoxical ground that he knew too much about the enemy against whom we\nare fighting. It is certainly true that he has a better understanding\nthan any other statesman of the Prussian perversion of aristocracy and\nof the true function of science in the State. But it is too much to hope\nthat philosophers should remain Ministers of a State in which\njournalists are become dictators.]\n\n\nSec.3\n\nThe Receding God\n\nI don't know that it is necessary to drag God into the argument. But if\nyou like to regard God as the sanction and source of morality, or if you\nlike to call the moral drift in human affairs God, it is possible to\nconsider this \"Sphere of Morality\" from His point of view. His \"point of\nview\" is precisely what, in an instructive fable, we may present as the\ndetermining factor in morality. When He walked in the garden or lurked\nhardly distinguishable among the sticks and stones of the forest,\nmorality was just an understanding between a man and his neighbour, a\ntemporary agreement entered on by any two hunting savages whom He might\nhappen to espy between the tree-trunks. When He dwelt among the peaks of\nSinai or Olympus, the sphere of morality had extended to the whole tribe\nthat occupied the subjacent valley. It came to include the nation, all\nthe subjects of each sovereign state, by the time He had receded to some\nheavenly throne above the dark blue sky. And it is to be hoped that He\nmay yet take a broader view, so that His survey will embrace the whole\nof mankind, if only we can banish Him to a remoter altitude in the\nfrozen depths of space, whence He can contemplate human affairs without\nbeing near enough to interfere.\n\nThe moral of this little myth of the Receding God may be that the Sphere\nof Morality is extended in inverse proportion to the intensity of\ntheological interference. Not that theology necessarily or always\ndeliberately limits the domain of morality: but because the extension of\nmoral relations and the relegation of anthropomorphic theology are\nco-ordinate steps in human advancement.\n\n\nSec. 4\n\nThe Philosopher looks at Society\n\nThe philosopher is apt to explain the growth and interrelation of ideas\nby tabulating them in an historical form, which may not be narrowly,\nchronologically, or \"historically\" true. The notion of the Social\nContract may be philosophically true, though we are not to imagine the\ncitizens of Rousseau's State coming together on a certain day to vote by\nshow of hands, like the members of the Bognor Urban District Council. So\nwe may illustrate a theory of moral or social evolution by a sort of\nhistorical pageant, which will not be journalistically exact, but will\ngive a true picture of an ideal development, every scene of which can be\nparalleled by some actually known or inferred form of human life.\n\n\nSec. 5\n\nHomo Homini Lupus\n\nOur imagination, working subconsciously on a number of laboriously\naccumulated hints, a roomful of chipped or polished stones, the sifted\ndebris of Swiss palafittes, a few pithecoid jawbones, some painted rocks\nfrom Salamanca, produces a fairly definite picture of the earliest\nessentially human being on earth: and we recognise a man not unlike one\nof ourselves; with a similar industry interrupted from time to time by\nthe arbitrary stirrings of a similar artistic impulse; so close to us\nindeed that some of his habits still survive among us. Some of us at\nleast have made a recreation of his necessity, and still go hunting wild\nor hypothetically wild animals for food. But when this primeval hunter\nemerged from his lair in the forest or his valley-cave, he was prepared\nto attack at sight any man he happened to meet: and he thought himself a\nfine fellow if he succeeded in cracking the skull of a possible rival in\nlove or venery. This was the age of preventive aggression with a\nvengeance. We still feel a certain satisfaction in a prompt and crushing\nblow, and in the simplicity of violence. But we no longer attack our\nneighbour in the street, as dogs fight over a bone or over nothing at\nall: though some of us reserve the right to snarl.\n\n\nSec. 6\n\nTribe against Tribe\n\nBut this fighter's paradise was too exciting to last long; and indeed it\nis hard to visualise steadily the feral solitary man who lived without\nany social organisation at all.[2] Consideration like an angel came and\ndid not indeed drive the offending devil out of him but taught him to\nguide it into more profitable channels, by co-operating with his\nneighbour. When a man first made peace with the hunter in the next cave\nin order to go out with him against the bear at the head of the valley,\nor even to have his assistance in carrying off a couple of women from\nthe family down by the lake, on that day the social and moral unit was\nconstituted, the sphere of morality, destined, who knows how soon, to\ninclude the whole of mankind in one beneficent alliance, began with what\nProfessor McDougal has called \"the replacement of individual by\ncollective pugnacity.\" The first clear stage in this progress is the\ntribe or clan, the smallest organised community, sometimes no larger\nthan the self-contained village or camp, which can still be found in the\nwild parts of the earth. Tribe against tribe is the formula of this\norder of civilisation. Within the limits of the community man inhibits\nhis natural impulses and settles his personal disputes according to the\nrules laid down by the headman or chief. But once outside the stockade\nhe can kill and plunder at will, though owing to the similarly strong\norganisation of the next village he will usually reserve his predatory\nexploits for the official and collective raids of village against\nvillage and tribe against tribe.\n\nOf course the family is a step leading up to the tribal stage of\nmorality, and it may be that the idea of incest marks the social stage\nin which the moral sphere was conterminous with the family,\ncorresponding to the institution of exogamy in the moral system of the\ntribe.\n\nIt may be added that even in the modern family the feeling which unites\nthe members often consists less, very much less, of affection than of a\nsort of obligation to hang together for mutual defence.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 2: Cf. Plato's myth of Protagoras (_Prot_. 322 B ff.).]\n\n\nSec. 7\n\nThe City State\n\nThe City State, self-contained, self-supporting, truly democratic, is\nmarked by a similar pugnacity. Only full citizenship conferred full\nmoral rights, and any ferocity could be justified in war against another\ncity. Athens wore herself out in the long struggle with Sparta, and\nGreece was lured to destruction by the devil of Imperialism, whose stock\nargument is to suggest that a State can extend its rights without\nextending its obligations. But the limitation of the moral sphere by the\nboundaries of the city is less apparent in the Greek States, because in\nthe historical period at least they were already in transition to a\nlarger view, and enlightened opinion certainly believed in a moral\nsystem which should include all Greek States, to the exclusion of course\nof all \"barbarians\": but this larger view was even more definitely\nlimited, and the demarcation of those within from those outside the\nmoral sphere was never more sharply conceived, than in the difference\ncommonly held to exist between Greeks and Barbarians. Yet even so Greece\ncan maintain her pre-eminence in thought; for Plato and Euripides at\nleast glimpsed the conception, by which we do not yet consent to be\nguided, of the moral equality of all mankind.[3]\n\nFor all these reasons the City State as a limited moral sphere is better\nseen perhaps in Mediaeval Italy, where, I imagine, a Florentine might\nkill a native of Pisa whenever he liked; whereas if he killed a fellow\nFlorentine he risked at least the necessity of putting himself outside\nthe moral sphere, of having that is to leave Florence and stay in Pisa\ntill the incident was forgotten.[4]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 3: Even Aristotle probably had some suspicion of it; so in his\nanxiety to justify the institution of slavery he had to make out that\nslaves were not men at all but only machines.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Duelling might be classified theoretically as a survival of\nthe wolfish condition sketched in Sec. 5. But the persistent institution of\nsingle combat should not be regarded as in itself a survival, but rather\nas an outlet for the surviving instinct, a concession justified by\npolitical or social considerations that vary from age to age. Even Plato\nin his _Republic_ (465 A) agreed that the citizen might in certain\ncircumstances take the law into his own hands, probably regarding such\naction as a sort of equity, what Aristotle calls [Greek: epanorthoma\nnomou elleipei dia ton katholou], a rectification of certain special\ncases not covered by law.\n\nIn modern states again, e.g. in Austria and Germany, duelling is not so\nmuch a survival as a corollary of militarism, which involves a\nfetichistic veneration of the military uniform or of military \"honour.\"]\n\n\nSec. 8\n\nThe Nations of Europe _ferae naturae_\n\nIn the next and latest stage in the expansion of the moral system we\nfind it again conterminous with the frontiers of the State. But it is\nnow no longer the small city state of Ancient Greece and Mediaeval Italy,\nbut the large political unit, roughly and hypothetically national,[5]\nwhich constitutes the modern State, whether Kingdom, Republic, or\nEmpire. I have called this the latest stage in the extension of the\nsphere of morality because it is the one which actually prevails and\nlimits our national conduct. For the paradox of legal murder and\nmassacre in the modern world is resolved as soon as we realise that war\nis a conflict between two or more isolated moral systems, each of which\nonly regards violence as a crime to be suppressed within the limits of\nits own validity. International warfare in its crudest form is only a\nmanifestation of the original wolfish state of man, the \"state of\nnature\" which exists between two moral agents who have no moral\nobligation to each other (but only to themselves). The fact that the\nprimitive savage was an individual moral agent having no moral\nobligation to anyone but himself, while the modern fighting nation is a\nmoral agent of who knows how many millions, does not alter the essential\ncharacter of the conflict.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 5: See below, Chapter IV, Sec. 4. _Nationalism True and False_.]\n\n\nSec. 9\n\nThe Convenience of Diplomacy\n\nAs a matter of fact this original wolfish attitude of nations is already\nobsolete, if it ever existed. The expansion and growth of political and\nmoral relations is a gradual process, and the fact that for the sake of\nbrevity and clearness we fix and describe certain arbitrary points in\nthat process must not be taken to imply that it is discontinuous. Anyhow\nthere is no doubt that the specifically wolfish attitude of one nation\nto another can hardly be found in its pure state, being already tempered\nand mitigated by the practice and custom of diplomacy: and this\ndiplomatic mitigation, however superficial, does something to break down\nthat windowless isolation which is the essential cause of violence\nbetween two independent moral entities. Pacificists of the democratic\nschool sometimes present a fallacious view of international diplomacy,\nand almost imply that the present war was made inevitable by the fact\nthat Viscount Grey was educated at Harrow, or that peace could have\nbeen preserved with Germany if only Sir Edward Goschen had begun life as\na coal heaver, or had at least been elected by the National Union of\nBoilermakers. Their panacea they vaguely call the democratic control of\nForeign Affairs, though it is not clear why we should expect twenty\nmillion still ignorant voters to be more enlightened than one educated\nrepresentative who is, as a matter of fact, usually so much oppressed by\na due sense of his responsibility that he is in danger of bungling only\nfrom excessive timidity. The experience of the Law Courts shows that\ntwelve men, be they never so good and true, cannot _at present_ be\ntrusted to weigh and discriminate as nicely as one[6]; and the fact that\nthe _Daily Mail_ has the largest circulation of any morning paper is a\nsufficient mark of the present capacity and inclination of the majority\nto control public affairs more directly than they do. It is said that\nthe secrecy of diplomatic affairs breeds an atmosphere of suspicion; and\nit might be said with equal truth that all secrecy of every kind is\nalways and everywhere the most unnecessary thing in the world.[7] But\nthe fundamental fallacy of all these arguments is that they treat\ndiplomacy as an essential of international relations, whereas it is only\nan accident, a trapping, a convenience, or a common form. Its defects\nare the result and the reflection of national opinion. Diplomatists are\nno more responsible for the defects of international relationship than\nseconds are responsible for the practice of duelling: and we may note\nincidentally that duels are if anything more frequent when the place of\nthe seconds in estimating their necessity is taken by a democratic court\nof honour.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 6: The duties of a jury are, of course, very carefully limited\nby law. But even in this reduced sphere they are remarkable chiefly for\ntheir incompetence, prejudice, inattention, and stupidity. See\nparticularly Andre Gide's _Souvenirs de la Cour d'Assises_, all the\nimplied criticisms in which apply, _mutatis quibusdam mutandis_, with\nequal force to English and indeed to all juries.]\n\n[Footnote 7: It is possible to argue, though of course impossible to\nprove, that if every diplomatic document of recent years had been\nimmediately made public, the relations between the Powers would have\nremained very much what they are with \"secret diplomacy\"; that \"public\ndiplomacy\" would if anything have intensified the existing jealousy and\ndistrust. As a matter of fact anyone who takes the trouble can\napproximately discover the diplomatic situation existing at a particular\nmoment between any two Powers, even if he cannot know the verbal text of\na particular treaty. And if the supporters of \"public diplomacy\"\nreasonably point out that \"publicity\" is desired only as a means to\nensure the democratic control of Foreign policy, the answer is that the\nonly way to ensure the democratic control of diplomats or any other\npublic servants is to educate the people.]\n\n\nSec. 10\n\nA Note on Democracy\n\nThe outcry for \"democratic\" control demands, I think, a note, if not a\nvolume,[8] on the limitations of democracy. We are all, I suppose,\nagreed nowadays that the government of the future must be democratic, in\nthe sense that every adult has a _right_ to full citizenship, and every\ncitizen can claim a vote. But it is obviously impossible for a modern\nState to be governed directly by the voices of say fifty or a hundred\nmillion citizens: there must always be a small legislative and a still\nsmaller executive body; and these bodies should obviously be composed of\nthe finest and most capable citizens. If then Aristocracy means, as it\ndoes mean, a government of the whole by the best elements, it follows\nthat we are all equally agreed that the government of the future must be\naristocratic. The solution of this antinomy is of course that democracy\nis not an end in itself, but only a means for the selection and sanction\nof aristocracy.[9] The best elements in the population can only come to\nthe top if every man has an opportunity of using his voice and his\nintelligence. We may note in passing that a common objection, raised by\nwriters like Emile Faguet, to the effect that democracy puts a premium\non incompetence by choosing its officials almost fortuitously from the\nmob, is the exact opposite of the truth. It is our present regime that\nleaves the selection of our rulers to the chances of birth or wealth or\nforensic success. Real democracy will stimulate the selection of the\nbest, just as trade union standardisation of wages encourages the\nemployment of the better workmen.[10]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 8: Such a volume or something very much like it has actually\nmade its appearance, since these lines were written, in Professor Robert\nMichels' _Political Parties_ (Jarrold, 1916).]\n\n[Footnote 9: Cf. Bernard Shaw, in Pease, _History of the Fabian\nSociety_, p. 268: \"Sooner or later, unless democracy is to be discarded\nin a reaction of disgust such as killed it in ancient Athens, democracy\nitself will demand that only such men should be presented to its choice\nas have proved themselves qualified for more serious and disinterested\nwork than 'stoking up' election meetings to momentary and foolish\nexcitement. Without qualified rulers a Socialist State is impossible.\"]\n\n\nSec. 11\n\nDiplomacy not bad in itself\n\nThe real importance of diplomacy, as I have said, is in the fact that it\nis a mitigation of primary ferocity, a symptom of readiness to\nnegotiate, a recognition of the fact that disputes need not be settled\nby immediate violence: and as such it points to a time when war may be\nsuperseded, as personal combat has been superseded by litigation. The\nman who puts a quarrel with his neighbour into the hands of a legal\nrepresentative is a stage higher in social civilisation than the man who\nfights it out at sight. Diplomats are the legal representatives of\nnations--only there is no supernational court before which they can\nstate their case.\n\nOf course, it is perfectly true that the ultimate sanction of diplomacy\nis always force, that international negotiations may always be resolved\ninto a series of polite threats, and that the envoy of the small and\nweak nation rarely has any influence. Indeed there are few less enviable\nsituations than that of the minister of a very small State at the court\nof a very large one. But the mere fact that force is their sanction does\nnot _ipso facto_ dispose of diplomatic and arbitrational methods. We all\nknow that the force at the disposal of the Sovereign is the ultimate\nsanction of Law. But that force never has to be fully exerted because\nthere is a common consent to respect the Law and its officers.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 10: Cf. Webb, _Industrial Democracy_, p. 718.]\n\n\nSec. 12\n\nManners no Substitute for Morals\n\nThe real difference between legal methods and the methods of diplomacy\n(in which I here include international conversations of every sort) is\nthat the latter take place, as it were, in a vacuum. There is no\nSovereign, no common denominator, no unifying system in which both\nparties are related by their common obligations. They exist and act in\ntwo separate moral spheres, and no real intercourse is possible between\nthem. For all their ambassadors and diplomatic conferences the nations\nof Europe are only wolves with good manners. And manners, as we all\nknow, are no substitute for morals.\n\n\nSec. 13\n\nWar a Moral Anachronism\n\nThus we come back to our thesis that war is not only possible but\ninevitable so long as the extent of the moral sphere is conterminous\nwith the frontiers of the State. But merely to explain laboriously that\nall this organised killing is not really a paradox but the natural\naccompaniment of a certain stage of moral development, and to leave it\nat that, would be rather to exaggerate our philosophic detachment. The\npoint is that we are long past the stage of regarding any but our\nfellow-subjects as moral outlaws. For some years, to say the least, it\nhas been generally received that the sphere of morality is co-extensive\nwith mankind. In spite of certain lingering exceptions, it is to-day a\ncommonplace of thought that every human being on the earth is our\ncolleague in civilisation; is a member that is of the human race, which\nfinding itself on this earth has got somehow to make the best of it; is\na shareholder in the human asset of self-consciousness which we are\ncalled upon to exploit. It would certainly be hard to find a man of what\nwe have called enlightened opinions who would not profess, whatever his\nprivate feelings, that it is as great a crime to kill a Hottentot or a\nJew as to kill an Englishman. With certain lingering exceptions then we\nalready regard the foreigner as a member of our own moral system. The\nmoral sphere has already extended or is at least in course of extension\nto its ultimate limits: and war is a survival from the penultimate stage\nof morality. War, to put it mildly, is a moral anachronism. War between\nEuropean nations is civil war. Logically all war should be recognised at\nonce, at any rate by enlightened opinion, as the crime, the disaster,\nthe ultimate disgrace that it obviously is. Why then do we cling to the\nimplications of a system that we have grown out of? Why do we affect the\nlimitation of boundaries that have been already extended? Or is our\nprison so lovely that though the walls fall down we refuse to walk out\ninto the air?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\n     A sociologist wrote to the Vali of Aleppo, asking: What are the\n     imports of Aleppo? What is the nature of the water-supply? What is\n     the birth-rate, and the death-rate?\n\n     The Vali replied: It is impossible for anyone to number the camels\n     that kneel in the markets of Aleppo. The water is sufficient; no\n     one ever dies of thirst in Aleppo. How many children shall be born\n     in this great city is known only to Allah the compassionate, the\n     merciful. And who would venture to inquire the tale of the dead?\n     For it is revealed only to the Angels of death who shall be taken\n     and who shall be left. O idle Frank, cease from your presumptuous\n     questioning, and know that these things are not revealed to the\n     children of men.\n\n  The _Bustan of Mahmud Aga el-Arnauty_.\n\n\nSec. 1\n\nThe Armament Ring\n\nWhat, in short, are the forces that make for the anachronistic survival\nof war--apart of course from the defect that it is always with us, the\nhabit of inertia, sometimes called Conservatism?\n\nThe obvious answer is not, I think, the correct one. At least it is\ncorrect as far as it goes, but leaves us very far from a complete\nexplanation of this unpleasant survival. So scandalous is the\ninterrelation of the armament firms[11] which has developed the world's\ntrade in munitions and explosives into one obscene cartel; so cynical is\nthe avidity with which their agents exchange their trade secrets, sell\nships and guns, often by means of diplomatic blackmail, to friend or foe\nalike, and follow those pioneers of civilisation the missionary, the gin\nmerchant and the procurer,[12] into the wildest part of the earth; so\nabsurd on the face of it is the practice of allowing the manufacture of\narmaments to remain in the hands of private companies; that it is very\ntempting to see in the great Armament Firms the principal if not the\nonly cause of modern war. Examiners of German militarism, most of them\nstupid enough to quote Nietzsche, may be pardoned for emphasising the\npolitical influence of Krupp; and since every great Power has a more or\nless efficiently organised Krupp of its own, it would be permissible to\nsuggest that war would be already obsolete but for the intensive\ncultivation it receives for the benefit of Krupp, Creusot, Elswick and\nthe rest. But it would be wrong; our syllogism would have a badly\nundistributed middle. It is true that Krupp in particular, who is the\nactual owner of more than one popular German newspaper, and other\narmament firms in a smaller degree, exercise an enormous influence on\nnational opinion, create their own markets by the threat of war, and\nwould go bankrupt if wars should cease. You may also say that their\nshareholders live by prostituting the patriotism of their\nfellow-citizens: in short, you may denounce them with the most expensive\nrhetoric to be had without doing them any injustice. But the fact\nremains that their position with regard to war is exactly analogous to\nthat of the great breweries with regard to drunkenness. They live by\ntaking advantage of human weakness. It is quite accurate, therefore, to\ndescribe their earnings as immoral, but they are no more the cause of\nthe immorality they exploit and undoubtedly encourage, than makers of\nseismological instruments are responsible for the occurrence of\nearthquakes. The interests of one trade alone, however powerful in\nitself, would never be strong enough to plunge a nation into war. They\nare, of course, accessories to the crime; but the militarism they are\nguilty of fostering has other primary explanations.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 11: Several books have been published giving details of the\nArmament Ring and international \"Kruppism.\" I don't think that the\nlanguage here used does any injustice to the facts.]\n\n[Footnote 12: See below, Sec. 7.]\n\n\nSec. 2\n\nEugenics?\n\nIn this brief investigation of the possible causes of war, it must be\nunderstood that what we want to find is what is called a \"sufficient\nreason\" for its continued existence. The armament trades may supply the\nmeans, the occasion, the stimulant, but their relation to it is not\nessentially causal. Many writers of another school have attempted to\nprove that the sufficient reason of war is a beneficent function of\nwhich they believe it to be capable. This imaginary function is none\nother than that of improving the race, and we may admit at once that, if\nthere were the slightest scientific basis for such a belief, the\nbloodiest war would be morally justified, and it would be the religious\nduty of every individual to kill as many as possible of his fellows for\nthe benefit of their descendants. But of course modern warfare so far\nfrom improving the race must sensibly exhaust it. In ancient Sparta, and\ngenerally whenever the conditions of warfare approximated to those of\npersonal combat, courage and the allied characteristics of mental as\nwell as of physical nobility must have had a survival value; whereas in\nmodern warfare which makes for the indiscriminate extermination of all\ncombatants, the result is exactly reversed. Our semi-scientific\nmilitarists forget that the \"survival of the fittest\"[13] is in nature\nessentially a process of selective elimination; and modern war is a\nprocess of inverted selection which eliminates the brave, the\nadventurous and the healthy; precisely those members of the community\nwho are best fitted to survive, that is to propagate their kind, in the\nordinary environment of political life. Conscription, indeed, spreading\na wider net than the voluntary system, may be described as an\ninstitution for exposing the best citizens of a state to abnormal risks\nof annihilation. As a matter of historic fact we are told, though I\ndon't know on what authority, that the Napoleonic wars, how much less\ndeadly than our own, reduced by an inch the average height of the French\nnation.\n\nSo much, in brief, for the \"scientific\" justification of war. It is\nevident that by the eugenic argument war could be defended only if we\nagreed to send into battle precisely those men whom our recruiting\nofficers disqualify. A good deal might be said, from the sociologist's\npoint of view, in favour of a system of cathartic conscription which\nwould rejuvenate England with a watchword of \"The Unfit to the\nTrenches.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 13: They usually add to their mental confusion the elementary\nblunder of using the word \"fittest\" in a moral instead of in its\nbiological sense.]\n\n\nSec. 3\n\nPatriotism\n\nIf again there were any evidence to show that war and war alone kept\nalive the spirit of true patriotism, it would be less easy to denounce\nits manifold wickedness. For true patriotism, although like all\npassionate emotion it involves a certain mental distortion, a slight\ndisturbance of the rational orbit, is yet one of those happy diseases\nwhich relieve the colourlessness of strict normality. It is a magic, a\nglamour, of the nature of personal affection, which only great poetry\ncan fully express, and volumes of bad poetry cannot quite destroy. It\nhas besides a real political value, binding the State together, and\ngiving it a stronger moral coherence than can be attained by any legal\nor constitutional authority; a fact that is illustrated by those\ndistressful countries in which its limits are not conterminous with the\npolitical boundaries of the State. I am inclined to think that just\nbecause true patriotism is of the nature of a personal affection, it is\nan emotion that cannot be inspired by an empire, any more than personal\naffection can be inspired by a corporation or a joint-stock company.[14]\nCertainly Imperialism more often gives rise to a sentimental worship of\nforce and a certain promiscuous lust for mere extension of territory\nwhich are quite alien to the steady devotion of the patriot to the land\nhe knows.[15]\n\nUnless one be a poet, it is difficult, as may perhaps be gathered from\nthe preceding paragraph, sufficiently to praise genuine patriotism\nwithout falling into vague rhetoric. But I submit that there is nothing\nto show that this political emotion is created, stimulated, or even\ndiscovered by war. Actually it seems that the reverse is the case, if\none may judge by the fact that war is invariably accompanied by an\noverwhelming outbreak of every spurious form of patriotism that was ever\ninvented by the devil to make an honest man ashamed of his country. True\npatriotism is a calm and lovely orientation of the spirit towards the\nvital beauty of England. It has no noisy manifestations and consequently\none may not be able to find it among the crowds who shout most loudly\nfor war.\n\nOne finds instead a sort of violent fever and calenture which not merely\ndeflects, as any emotion may, but totally inhibits the rational\noperations of the mind. The newspapers supply a legion of witnesses.\n\nThus the _Evening Standard_ perorates against some pacificist lecturer\n(who had attempted to clear his views from all sorts of\nmisrepresentations) with the magnificent comment that he had not\n\"repudiated his remarks as to the pleasure which the tune of the\nAustrian National Anthem gave him.\"[16] But I should weary you were I\nto transcribe a tithe of the stupid remarks made by persons in authority\nunder the influence of war. The record, I believe, in England is held at\npresent by Mr. Bodkin, K.C.\n\nIt may be said of course that men, and newspapers, are equally stupid in\ntime of peace; and I fear that fundamentally this is true. War does not\nchange their nature, but only brings to the bubbling surface the dregs\nand vileness and scum. War does not change any one's nature; and that is\nwhy it is vain to expect that under its influence those crowds will love\ntheir country who never loved anything before. But if war cannot create\nit may at least be supposed to discover and test the existent patriotism\nof the nation. And this supposition is corroborated at first sight by\nthe realisation that hundreds of thousands, that actually millions of\npreviously ordinary young men have implied by enlisting their\nwillingness to die for England. One might, of course, reason that no\nindividual recruit really believes he is going to be killed, that each\nboy thinks he will be one of the lucky ones who escape all the bullets\nunhurt to enjoy an honoured return, that recruiting would have failed\nentirely if the barracks were explicitly a grave and enlistment the\ncertainty of violent death or mutilation. But somehow I don't think that\nwould be a fair argument. It is more pertinent if less easy to remember\nthat a readiness to die for one's country is not the highest form of\npolitical virtue. If it be, as it is, a solemn and wonderful thing to be\nwilling to die for the salvation (_ex hypothesi_) of England, it must be\nmuch more wonderful and solemn to be willing to die in order slightly to\nincrease the income of one's family. And every schoolboy knows that the\nChinaman of the old regime was willing to have his head cut off for the\npayment of a few dollars to his next of kin. Let no one ever deny our\nsoldiers the honour of their courage and nobility; but the fact remains\nthat the readiness to die for England is a less adequate test of\npatriotism than a readiness to live for England; and if the readiness to\nlive for the State rather than for private interests had been for a\nhundred years a social virtue whose votaries could be numbered by the\nmillion, then indeed England would be to-day a nation worth dying for.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 14: If anyone were to suggest that this is disproved by the\nunparalleled nobility of Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and\nIndians in the present campaign, I should reply that they are actuated\nby devotion not to the Empire but to England, not to the Company but to\nthe Chairman of the Company. This may be a quibble, but I think the\ndistinction is real. Anyhow, I leave it at that, as the point has no\nprimary relevance.]\n\n[Footnote 15: See below, Chapter IV, Sec. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 16: The paragraph is worth preserving in its entirety: \"Mr. W.\nN. Ewer, who lectured at Finchley for the Union of Democratic Control,\nhas explained that the report which we published of his speech is\nunfair, and that he is really in substantial agreement with Mr. Asquith.\nThis is disingenuous, and Mr. Ewer knows it is. He has not repudiated\nthe correctness of the report, which stated that he dilated on the\ndanger of British navalism, and declared that we must give up singing\n'Rule Britannia!' nor has he repudiated his remarks as to the pleasure\nwhich the tune of the Austrian National Anthem gave him. Does he think\nthat Mr. Asquith would substantially agree with that? Or the\ncountry?\"--_The Evening Standard_, July 26, 1915.]\n\n\nSec. 4\n\nThe \"Moral Test\"\n\nThe theory that war is beneficial as a moral test, a furnace in which\ncharacter is proved--_ut fulvum spectatur in ignibus aurum_--is that\ngenerally adopted by the Christian Churches, who may be said without\ndisrespect to have taken every advantage of their founder's unique\nreference to the sword. I cannot help thinking that there is something\nfundamental in this ecclesiastical advocacy of war; that some\npsychological theory could be outlined to correlate this almost uniform\nadvocacy with the facts that such religious men as Tennyson and Ruskin\nwere among the loudest in their support of the Crimean War, that such a\nmilitarist as Rudyard Kipling in his best work (in _Kim_, in _Puck of\nPook's Hill_ and the intercalated poems, in the most successful of his\nshort stories) shows himself to be at heart a deeply religious mystic;\nand that in France the very active Clerical party, one consequence of a\ndisestablished Church, is always closely supported by the Chauvinists.\nIn many cases, however, I have no doubt that the pious Christian,\nfinding himself confronted with war, and not having the moral courage or\nthe political detachment to condemn it, only applies automatically to\nits justification the arguments which he habitually uses to explain the\nexistence of evil and pain. It is certain at least that the theories of\nwar as a Moral Test or a School of Character bear a strong resemblance\nto the commonplaces of religious consolation which almost any good\nChristian will offer to the bereaved and afflicted. Any one who has seen\nan innocent friend slowly tortured to death by some vile disease will\nknow the futility of the Christian defence (for these religious\nconsolations amount theologically to a defence) that pain ennobles the\ncharacter and \"proves\" the moral courage of the sufferer.[17] The\nleading fallacy of the defence that war, or pain, is valuable as a\nmoral test is akin to the common misunderstanding of the word \"prove\" in\nthe saying that \"the exception proves the rule\"; the truth being that a\nstrong and noble character, one of whose corollary qualities is a\ncapacity to bear pain, is not less strong and noble if it is never\ncalled upon to exercise that capacity. The San Francisco earthquake was\nnot a blessing in disguise because it happened to \"test\" and \"prove\" the\nstrength and flexibility of modern American architecture.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 17: I cannot help reproducing here a letter which originally\nappeared in the _Manchester Guardian_ at the time of the Boer War, and\nis quoted by Mr. Norman Angell in _The Great Illusion_, p. 281.\n\n\"SIR,--I see that 'The Church's Duty in Regard to War' is to be\ndiscussed at the Church Congress. This is right. For a year the heads of\nour Church have been telling us what war is and does--that it is a\nschool of character; that it sobers men, cleans them, strengthens them,\nknits their hearts; makes them brave, patient, humble, tender, prone to\nself-sacrifice. Watered by 'war's red rain,' one Bishop tells us, virtue\ngrows; a cannonade, he points out, is an 'oratorio'--almost a form of\nworship. True; and to the Church men look for help to save their souls\nfrom starving for lack of this good school, this kindly rain, this\nsacred music. Congresses are apt to lose themselves in wastes of words.\nThis one must not, surely cannot, so straight is the way to the goal. It\nhas simply to draft and submit a new Collect for war in our time, and to\ncall for the reverent but firm emendation, in the spirit of the best\nmodern thought, of those passages in Bible and Prayer Book by which even\nthe truest of Christians and the best of men have at times been blinded\nto the duty of seeking war and ensuing it. Still, man's moral nature\ncannot, I admit, live by war alone; nor do I say with some that peace is\nwholly bad. Even amid the horrors of peace you will find little shoots\nof character fed by the gentle and timely rains of plague and famine,\ntempest and fire; simple lessons of patience and courage conned in the\nschools of typhus, gout, and stone; not oratorios, perhaps, but homely\nanthems and rude hymns played on knife and probe in the long winter\nnights. Far from me to 'sin our mercies,' or to call mere twilight dark.\nYet dark it may become; for remember that even these poor makeshift\nschools of character, these second-bests, these halting substitutes for\nwar--remember that the efficiency of every one of them, be it hunger,\naccident, ignorance, sickness, or pain, is menaced by the intolerable\nstrain of its struggles with secular doctors, plumbers, inventors,\nschoolmasters, and policemen. Every year thousands who would once have\nbeen braced and steeled by manly tussles with small-pox or diphtheria\nare robbed of that blessing by the great changes made in our drains.\nEvery year thousands of women and children must go their way bereft of\nthe rich spiritual experience of the widow and the orphan.\"]\n\n\nSec. 5\n\nTrade\n\nI shall never forget the tones of hoarse satisfaction with which a\nvendor of the _Evening News_ disturbed the twilight of a May evening in\nLondon, triumphantly proclaiming a \"Great Troop Train Disaster.\" I had\noften noticed with what apparent joy the newspapers announced the\nsinking of a British cruiser; with what entirely neutral delight they\nwelcomed or invented the report of Terrible Slaughter on either side.\nBut somehow that hoarse and rufous man with the loose lip remained in my\nmemory and became for me a type of one element in the population to\nwhich war was not unwelcome; the journalistic element that lives by\nexploiting the sadistic curiosity, the craving for mean excitements, and\nall the gladiatorial instinct of the modern world.[18] It soon became\nclear that the newspapers were not alone in the commercial exploitation\nof war. They were not even the worst offenders. The publishers were\nhurriedly producing volume after volume of faked memoirs badly written\nby imaginary governesses. The production of spurious memoirs and\n\"autobiographies,\" even if they are skilfully composed, is always\ngrossly immoral; and of the specimens occasioned by this war one may say\nthat if they had been genuine it would have been possible to attribute\nthe low morality of some Germanic princes to the literary style of the\nEnglish governesses who had had a share in their education. The\ncatchpenny manoeuvres of publishers are really only a branch of\njournalism,[19] and such trivial offences were not, after all,\nunexpected, because the very profession of journalism is to take\nadvantage. But the journalist is a man of straw who shows which way the\nwind blows, and his raucous exultation over disaster was the manifest\nsymbol of a commercial exploitation of war by tradesmen and speculators\nwhich soon became sensible from one end of belligerent Europe to the\nother. Like the Vali of Aleppo, I am not good at statistics. It is well\nknown however without the assistance of a mathematician that in England\nduring the winter of 1915, when the cost of living had already risen by\nnearly 50 per cent, wholesale dealers often kept provisions of all sorts\nrotting in their stores rather than break the artificial scarcity they\nhad created; farmers would not sell fresh eggs when the price was\ntwopence-halfpenny, because they knew that in a week or two the price\nfor the same eggs would have risen to threepence. Here is a cartoon from\na Hungarian paper[20] showing the bloated profiteer of The Sugar Trust\nlaughing at the women who feebly attack his barricade of sugar loaves. I\nmention it here because it is sufficiently remote from English affairs,\nand because it happens to come to hand, and because it is a good\nfragment of evidence, there being no reason why sugar should be scarce\nin Hungary as an immediate result of the war. And from every country\nbetween England and Hungary, from every country in Europe, can be heard\nthe same complaint, unmistakable but how much too feeble, the cry of the\npeople who discover that one of the horrors of war is Trade.[21]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 18: Cf. the present writer's introduction to Whyte-Melville's\n_Gladiators_ in _Everyman's Library_, 1911.]\n\n[Footnote 19: It was certainly, for example, the Headline Instinct which\ncaused Mr. John Lane, a publisher of some repute, to impose on Mr. Ford\nMadox Hueffer's novel _The Saddest Story_, one of the most remarkable\nnovels of the century, such an absurdly irrelevant title as _The Good\nSoldier_. _The Good Soldier_ was published in April, 1915. The evidence\nthat the publisher must have changed the title just before publication\nis that an instalment of it had appeared serially as _The Saddest Story_\nin the summer of 1914, and that as _The Saddest Story_ it actually\nfigured in Mr. John Lane's catalogue at the end of the book.]\n\n[Footnote 20: _Matyas Diak_ of Budapest.]\n\n\nSec. 6\n\nTrade in Time of Peace\n\nIt would not however be correct to infer that the sacrifice of national\nwelfare to commercial manoeuvres is a condition peculiar to war.\nModern commerce is essentially an art; the art of making people pay more\nthan they are worth for things which they do not require. And it is with\nall the selfishness of the artist that it performs its usual operations.\nAmong all the unpublished detail of modern life hardly any class of\nfacts is more disquieting than that of commercial procedure and\nachievement. The subject is too large to be reviewed in less than a\nvolume; and I can do no more here than suggest a few instances that\nmight be acquired by anyone who devotes his time to not reading the\ndaily papers.\n\nThe distribution and exchange of commodities are necessary to the\nexistence of the State; so necessary that it might be supposed that\ntheir regulation would be one of the primary functions of government.\nProper systems of distribution and exchange correspond to the digestive\nprocesses of the body, on which depend the proper nutrition of all the\nparts and the real prosperity of the State as a whole; yet any\ncomprehensive plan for their control is still regarded as the most\nunattainable dream of Utopia, and they are left to carry on as best they\ncan in the interstices of private acquisitiveness. National well-being\nis not to be measured by mere volume of trade, which is the means and\nnot the essence of prosperity;[22] and prosperity can certainly never\nexist when equitable distribution is hindered by a sort of fatty\ndegeneration of capitalism. But trade in itself is a necessary aliment\nof the State, and its abuses ought not to be beyond remedy.\n\nA few of these abuses are fairly obvious without a full inquiry, and\nmay be illustrated here because their existence in time of peace may\nthrow light on the operations of trade in belligerent states, and\nindirectly, by suggesting a few of the results of war, may lead us to\nsome of its motives and occasions. Such abuses may be most easily\nidentified in opposition to the national rights which they infringe.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 21: So in Germany the fixing of maximum prices for pigs and\npotatoes was immediately followed by an almost complete withdrawal from\nthe market of potatoes and pigs--the German farmers refused to sell\nexcept at their own inflated prices. Cf. quotations from the German\nPress in _The New Statesman_ of January 29, 1916.]\n\n[Footnote 22: \"Ces choses sont plutot des moyens que l'on emploie pour\ntravailler a faire prosperer l'Etat qu'ils ne sont l'essence de sa\nprosperite.\"--Rousseau, _Political Writings_, I, 345 (C. E. Vaughan's\nedition).]\n\n\nSec. 7\n\nDuties of Commerce to the State\n\nThe State has a primary right to be fairly served. Prices should not be\narbitrarily raised by any wholesale merchant who happens to be in a\nposition to do so, or by any cartel of dealers in league for that\npurpose. Prices should be regulated by the cost of production, and\nshould not be an indication of demand; they should rise beyond the cost\nof production augmented by a fair profit only when the supply is\ninsufficient (production not being artificially restrained) to meet some\nabnormal demand, and only as a means of checking and regulating the\nexcessive demand. We find instead that any dealer or group of dealers\nwill raise their prices almost absent-mindedly as soon as they are in a\nposition to meet a demand which cannot be postponed. Thus it is that\ngovernments are habitually overcharged in all their contracts and\npurchases; because governments have neither the time nor the opportunity\nfor casual dealings, and because they do not undertake such transactions\nat all unless their absolute necessity has already been decided.[23] So\nat the beginning of the war English warehouses were full of all sorts of\ncommodities required by the governments of the Allies; but the urgency\nof war prevented any sort of bargaining; and the private merchants took\nadvantage of the situation to the amount of about two hundred per cent.\nAt present however I am dealing with trade in time of peace and I must\nnot flavour the ordinary facts with any consideration of War Office\ncontracts. It is enough to state the fact that in ordinary times the\nprivate tradesman regards a special demand as an opportunity for raising\nprices rather than as the stimulus of supply; a rule which is most\neasily detected in the experience of Government departments.\n\nThe State, through its individual citizens, has a primary right to\nobtain the particular commodity which it happens to prefer, without\nrestrictions imposed for the benefit of any particular tradesman. We\nfind instead that the ordinary purchaser no longer has any effective, or\nselective, demand. He has to buy what he is given. The informal\norganisation of the Trust system, primarily a financial operation,[24]\nhas involved the whole market in a network of interdependent industries.\nThe sale of the finished product is controlled and restricted by the\nvendors of the raw material. Corn is imported by shipbuilders; ships are\nbuilt by iron merchants; iron furnaces are controlled by coal owners,\nand coal mines are secured by money-lenders.\n\nThe system of the tied house, originally an indigenous corruption of the\nliquor trade, is being extended to every industry in the land. We can no\nlonger buy the bread we like, but have to eat whatever by-product least\ninterferes with the miller's profits.\n\nThe consumer's loss of any power of effective demand would not\nnecessarily be of national importance, if at least there were any\nguarantee that the unique commodity offered by the average trust system\nwere genuine and of good quality. One of the State's most elementary\nrights is that of ensuring to its citizens a pure supply of elementary\ncommodities. Yet Commerce has taken no steps, even in its own\ninterests, to suppress the horrid arts of adulteration, in which the\nmotives of the thief usurp the methods of the poisoner, with results\nwhich may be inferred from the meagre chronicles of the analyst.[25]\n\nEducation is the life of the State.[26] It is therefore of the gravest\nimportance that Commerce should in no circumstances whatever be allowed\nto interfere with the education of the future citizens. Yet, before the\nwar, in spite of the legislation of the last fifty years,[27] no less\nthan a quarter of a million children of school age were exempted from\nschool attendance for employment in various occupations.[28] Even apart\nfrom such improper exemptions the \"School Age\" fixed by law in itself\ngives quite insufficient protection. The brain of a girl hardly begins\nto wake up, or take any natural interest in the acquisition of general\nideas, before she comes to puberty. But all over London girls of\nthirteen or fourteen leave school and are sent by their mothers to earn\nhalf a crown a week matching patterns or sewing on sequins.\n\nMore generally, the State is entitled to demand from Commerce that it\nshould co-operate sincerely with the other elements in the State in\npursuing the real objects of civilisation, inspired by an altruistic\nregard for the whole of which it is a part, that is by what is really\n\"enlightened self-interest\"; by what Plato has called Temperance[29] and\nMr. H. G. Wells \"a sense of the State.\"[30] We find instead that the\ntrader has \"day and night held on indignantly\" in his disastrous hunt\nfor markets, destroying by accident or design whatever amenity in the\nworld does not contribute to his \"one aim, one business, one desire.\"\n\nAfter all, in our present pre-occupation with the horrors of war, we\nmust not exaggerate their extent. War at its maddest rivals but cannot,\nat present, surpass the mortality caused by tuberculosis, alcoholism and\nsyphilis, which peaceful Commerce, hand in hand with Christianity,\ncarries into the remotest parts of the earth. Some reader may have\nnoticed by this time that I am not a collector of statistics, but gather\nmy illustrations as I go from any scrap of paper that comes to hand. It\nis a lazy trick; but at any rate one escapes the fallacy of\nover-elaborated evidence, by calling as witness the man who happens to\nbe in the street at the moment. So at this point I happen to notice in\nthe _Manchester Guardian_ an extract from the report of the Resident\nCommissioner in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate. This is\nwhat it says of the natives:--\n\n     The cotton smock for women and the cotton trousers and shirts for\n     men, which in the mind of the people seem now so indispensable to\n     professed Christianity, while reducing the endurance of the skin,\n     render it the more susceptible to the chills which wet clothing\n     engenders. The result is colds, pneumonia, influenza--eventually\n     tuberculosis.\n\nWe may notice a not unexpected coincidence which the Resident\nCommissioner apparently omits to mention. It is that \"professed\nChristianity,\" by insisting on the propriety of cotton garments for the\nislanders hitherto well clad in a film of coco-nut oil and a \"_riri_ or\nkilt of finely worked leaves,\" is conferring a very appreciable benefit\non the Manchester trade in \"cotton goods.\" \"Our colonial markets have\nsteadily grown,\" says the Encyclopaedia, \"and will yearly become of\ngreater value.\" ...\n\nOn the same day as the issue of the _Manchester Guardian_ just quoted\nthere appeared in the _Times Literary Supplement_ a review of Canon C.\nH. Robinson's _History of Christian Missions_, \"a very sound\nintroduction to a vast and fascinating study.\" From this I gather that\n\n     there are few stories more romantic than the founding of the Uganda\n     Christian Church in British East Africa. At first progress was very\n     slow, and ... in 1890 there were scarcely 200 baptized Christians\n     in the country; yet by 1913 those associated with the Christian\n     Churches were little short of half a million.\n\nSo before Europe has shown many signs of convalescence, Africa is\nalready virulently infected. And \"our markets will yearly become of\ngreater value.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 23: See, for instance, the Report of the Committee of Public\nAccounts (commenting on the extravagance of Admiralty and War\nContracts), summarised in _The Times_ of August 19, 1916.]\n\n[Footnote 24: See Orage, _National Guilds_, p. 170 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Unfortunately I can find no authority for the amusing\nreport that the annual export of \"wine\" from Paris is _greater_ than the\nannual import.]\n\n[Footnote 26: That is, of course, of the modern or democratic state.\nDemocracy and education are interdependent.]\n\n[Footnote 27: As a matter of fact, no serious attempt to protect\nchildren was made before the Factory and Workshops Act of 1878.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Since the war there have been the most determined attempts\nto destroy all the social legislation so painfully acquired. See G. D.\nH. Cole, _Labour in War Time_, pp. 254-274.]\n\n[Footnote 29: _Republic_; 432 A. [Greek: armouia tiui e sophrosune\nomiotai, k.t.l.]]\n\n[Footnote 30: See _The Future in America_, and _New Worlds for Old,\npassim_.]\n\n\nSec. 8\n\nRestricted Sphere of Government corresponding to Restricted Sphere of\nMorality\n\nBut to return to our sheep, or rather to those who fleece them,--there\nis one cardinal proof that trade, in so far as it depends on private\nenterprise, is a danger to the State, and is recognised as such. It is\nthat as soon as war comes, the nation in danger instinctively adopts\nwhatever measure of Socialism can be introduced during the temporary\ninhibition of capitalistic methods. The actual coming of war induces a\nbrief panic in the marketplace, and during this momentary paralysis of\nprivate acquisitors the State makes a desperate attempt to subdue their\nactivities to its own needs. By the mere instinct of self-preservation\nit clutches at some rudiment of Socialism, and makes a diffident gesture\nin the direction of nationalisation--(of the railways, for instance).\nBut the capitalists of England can point with pride to the fact that\nthey very soon pulled themselves together. I hope to show in the\nfollowing chapter that by the time the war was in full swing they had\nmade it their own, and had banished every trace of socialism, with the\nrelics of sanity and truth, to the confines of the Labour press.[31]\n\nBut still the danger was for the moment realised, and the attempt was\nmade, the desperate and unsuccessful attempt to pull and squeeze and\nbind the institutions of capitalism into an organised system of\npolitical obligations. It failed because the very abuses and\nintemperances of our commercial system are a sign that the sphere of\ngovernment has not expanded with the growing complications of the modern\ncommunity. Nevertheless the attempt was made: but no corresponding\neffort is being made to extend the system of moral obligations in which\nwe live.\n\nFor it is just as the sphere of morality is unduly restricted and fails\nto correspond to the needs of humanity, that, on the political plane,\nthe unduly restricted sphere of government has never been extended to\ninclude all the interrelations of industrial citizenship. Capitalism is\na survival of the penultimate stage of political development, as war is\na survival of the penultimate stage of morality.\n\nThe attempts both spasmodic and continuous to extend the sphere of\ngovernment, which now begin to affect nearly all serious legislation,\nmust remain incomplete without an analogous and indeed corollary\nexpansion of the moral system which will involve the obsolescence of\nwar.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 31: This seems to apply to all belligerent states. Certainly\nvery little sanity finds its way into Germany except through the pages\nof _Vorwaerts_. It is therefore humiliating to be told that _Vorwaerts_\nhas a much larger circulation than any socialist paper in England.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n     Hinc usura uorax auidumque in tempora fenus et concussa fides et\n     MULTIS UTILE BELLUM.\n\n     Lucan, I, 181.\n\n     Individuals are constantly trying to decrease supply for their own\n     advantage.--_Fabian Essays_, 1889, p. 17.\n\n\nSec. 1\n\nTrade during the War\n\nTrade during the war seems to have had a remarkably good time. In the\nfirst year of warfare I began to collect a few facts in support of what\nthen seemed the paradoxical view that war was, in essence if not in\norigin, a very profitable capitalistic manoeuvre; a view deduced from\nthe opinion I had formed _a priori_ of the nature of all modern\nwarfare.[32] Instead of a few corroborating voices I found testimony\nabundant in every paper I picked up, besides the live evidence received\nin private letters and conversations. This pamphlet being rather\nphilosophic than statistical, I have taken the easy course of printing a\nselection of these testimonies, crude and undigested, in an appendix--a\ncold storage of facts and figures that allows me to repeat with a quiet\nconscience that trade is booming. The greater the war, apparently, the\ngreater the profits. In the words of the _Manchester Guardian_:--\n\n     The first full calendar year of war has been a period of\n     unparalleled industrial activity and, generally speaking,\n     prosperity in this country. Heavy losses and bad times have been\n     encountered in a few important industries, but these are balanced\n     by unprecedented profits made by a large variety of industries,\n     whether directly or indirectly affected by the war.[33] ... But it\n     would be a mistake to suppose that, while war manufactures\n     prospered, all other\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 32: See, for instance, my article \"A Footnote to the Balkan\nWar,\" published in the _Asiatic Review_ for July 1, 1914. This opinion\nis there expressed in the following words which I still think\nsubstantially true, though one or two phrases are rhetorically\nexaggerated.\n\n\"England and the rest of Western Europe have outgrown by about three\nhundred years the time in the development of nations when fighting is\nnatural and even necessary. England, of course, continues to contemplate\nwar, and to be bluffed by the threat of war in the circumlocutions of\ndiplomacy. But her national welfare no longer requires war; and, if she\never undertakes it, it will be at the bidding of merchants and usurers,\nwho do not represent even the baser instincts of the specifically\nnational spirit, but are wholly foreign and parasitic. On that occasion\nthe _Daily Mail_ and the Foreign Office will no doubt assure the British\npeople that the war in question involves the whole honour and welfare of\nthe State; and the people will believe it. But it will not be true. For\nEngland is happily not, or not yet, a nation of shopkeepers; and it will\nbe only the shopkeepers whose welfare is concerned.\"]\n\n     industry languished and decayed. To prove the contrary and show\n     that only here and there were there heavy losses, we may quote some\n     figures compiled by the _Economist_....\n\nAnd so forth.[34]\n\nTo this I will add only two typical paragraphs as a text for my\nsubsequent remarks, as I believe they suggest the general economic\nprocess which enriches the particular industries to which they refer.\nThe first is taken from _the Sunday Pictorial_, of all papers.[35]\n\n     Immense increases in the profits of two shipping companies are, as\n     a result of the ceaseless rise in freights, disclosed in the\n     reports of two Newcastle lines published yesterday. The high cost\n     of freights is largely responsible for the dearness of food, coal,\n     and other necessities of life. The gross profits of the Cairn Line\n     of Steamships, Ltd., amounted to L292,108, and the net profits,\n     after deducting the special war taxation and other items, were\n     L162,689. A dividend of 10 per cent, with bonus of 4s. per share,\n     is recommended. This makes a total of 30 per cent, free of income\n     tax, as against 10 per cent last year, when the total profits\n     amounted to L97,335. Less than half of this company's capital is\n     paid up, the total authorised being L600,000; there are also\n     debentures of about L150,000.\n\nThe next quotation is from the _New Statesman_:--[36]\n\n     Glasgow is exceedingly prosperous, and iron and steel manufacturers\n     tell me that the next three or four years, peace or war, must mean\n     a period of prosperity for them. Government orders now absorb so\n     large a proportion of output that outside requirements are simply\n     not being met. Owing to the scarcity of shipping this deficiency is\n     not being filled by imports from America (the only other possible\n     source of supply), so that unfilled orders are accumulating. A\n     waggon manufacturer told me he had sufficient work in sight to keep\n     him going for five years. It must be remembered that part of the\n     cost of the war is being met temporarily by depreciation--railway\n     tracks, rolling stock, locomotives, etc., _to mention only one\n     industry_,[37] not being replaced as they wear out, or being\n     maintained to the minimum degree necessary. This means that,\n     although less obvious than the reconstruction of ruined parts of\n     Belgium, France, Poland, and Eastern Prussia, repairs and\n     replacements aggregating many millions sterling in cost will have\n     to be carried out after the war in countries that have not been\n     invaded. A peace boom in the iron and steel and shipbuilding trades\n     appears certain.\n\nHere, before passing on to more general considerations, we may notice\nincidentally--it is brought out in the first quotation--that the\ntaxation of war profits reduces them proportionately but can never annul\nor quite overtake them. That is sufficiently obvious; but the fact must\nbe preliminarily emphasised because it is quite commonly assumed that\nthe mere imposition of a tax of 50 or 60 or 75 per cent automatically\nsolves the problem of war profits. As a matter of fact, taxation so far\nfrom solving the problem leaves it essentially unchanged, and really\nconnives at and recognises the practice. The problem remains, in spite\nof taxation, that one section of the nation is enriched by a process\nwhich necessitates the misery and death of other sections. We may\ntherefore in a broad discussion of the problem leave out of account the\nproposed and adopted palliatives of taxation.\n\nSecondly, we may notice--this is brought out in the second\nquotation--that profits directly produced by the war are not limited to\nthe period of the war. This again is really axiomatic, being only\nanother form of the platitude that it takes longer to construct than to\ndestroy: but it means that even a short war of sufficient intensity will\nensure a long period of profits, and therefore it noticeably aggravates\nthe conclusions to which I hope to lead.\n\nA fundamental point is that the profit on freights, excused immediately\nby the destruction of shipping,[38] leads indirectly to profits on such\nother commodities as food and coal, not only on account of the actual\nscarcity resulting, but also because any reason for increasing prices is\nmade a pretext for increasing profits.\n\nBut the scarcity of all general commodities is caused not only\nindirectly by the primary scarcity of ships, but also directly by the\nsame conditions of warfare as those which affect shipping. That is to\nsay, just as the intensified activity of the nation at war creates a\nlivelier demand for ships, so it also creates a greater demand for all\nthe ordinary commodities of living: and just as war by destroying ships\nreduces the available supply, so by its general destructiveness it\nreduces the supply of other commodities: and just as war by destroying\nships makes extraordinary profits for shipowners, so by destroying\ntables and teacups it makes unusual profits for the makers of tables and\nteacups. In short, destruction creates demand, and demand gives occasion\nfor profit.\n\nThis is a disquieting statement; because though one might hesitate to\ndeduce from it that any particular merchant must be in his commercial\ncapacity a conscious advocate of war for the sake of gain, it certainly\nsuggests that the body of trade must automatically and by a sort of\ninstinct of self-preservation be an element in the nation that makes for\nwar.\n\nThat is the kernel of my thesis;[39] and it is certainly a happy\ncoincidence that the possibility of its truth seems at last to be\ndawning on another writer, and one more expert than myself in the\nhandling of commercial theory. On the very morning after the last few\nsentences were written the following paragraph occurred in Mr. Emil\nDavies' \"City\" article in the _New Statesman_:--[40]\n\n     It is only as the reports and accounts for 1915 come out that a\n     correct idea can be formed of the benefit this catastrophic war has\n     been to the majority of our large industrial concerns. The\n     following is a list of companies whose reports and accounts have\n     appeared during the past few days. The difference between the\n     profits for the two years shown is even greater than appears, for\n     in practically every case the 1915 profit is stated after allowing\n     for the excess profits tax, additional depreciation or extra\n     reserves, most companies now adopting these and other devices to\n     render less conspicuous their war-time prosperity.\n\n                                            1914            1915\n                                              L               L\n  Smithfield and Argentine Meat Co.        25,732          142,055\n  Waring and Gillow                        35,217          100,885\n  Projectile Co.                           30,739          194,136\n  Lanarkshire Steel                        28,144           45,985\n  Frederick Leyland Steamship             337,188        1,196,683\n  Sutherland Steamship                     94,600          295,200\n\n     Waring and Gillow's sudden prosperity is not due to any better\n     business in the ordinary furniture trade, but to war contracts. The\n     Projectile Company figures are astonishing even for an armament\n     company; after applying L47,500 in satisfying the balance of the\n     prior claims of the Debentures, the Ordinary Shares receive their\n     first dividend--one of 50 per cent. No sane man would accuse\n     leaders of these great industrial concerns of doing anything to\n     bring about an outbreak of war; many of them have, indeed, paid a\n     heavy price for their prosperity in the shape of the loss of sons\n     or near relatives; but when all is said and done, the fact that a\n     war should put many half-bankrupt concerns on their legs, and make\n     fairly prosperous companies three or four times more prosperous\n     than before the war, is an influence in an undesirable direction.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 33: Moreover, as I hope to suggest later, even these losses to\na few individual _industries_ do not necessarily imply losses to the\n_capital_ involved, which in some cases has been diverted or adapted to\nother industries more appropriate to the times. For a review of Trade\nprofits in 1916 see the _Manchester Guardian_, January 1, 1917.]\n\n[Footnote 34: See Appendix I.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Quoted in the _New Age_, March 16, 1916.]\n\n[Footnote 36: April 8, 1916, from the \"City\" article by Emil Davies.]\n\n[Footnote 37: My italics.]\n\n[Footnote 38: The rise in freights is a good example of the way in which\nabnormal profits are extorted from the public as soon as any scarcity\nputs them at the mercy of the trader. (See above, p. 45.) The rise in\nfreights is unalloyed profit, for the shipping companies have no\nincreased risk, since the Insurance Companies are guaranteed by the\nState.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Which was first drafted in a letter to _The Garton\nFoundation_ more than a year ago.]\n\n[Footnote 40: April 29, 1916. One might also mention for its\nverisimilitude the situation described at the end of Mr. F. Brett\nYoung's novel _The Iron Age_ (Secker, 1916), in which the insolvent\nironworks of Mawne are saved in the nick of time by the declaration of\nwar.]\n\n\nSec. 2\n\nTrade lives on Increasing Demand\n\nAll war, whatever temporary dislocation of business it may involve, must\nultimately, as a principal form of destruction, assist the intensive\ncultivation of demand which constitutes nearly the whole of modern\ntrade. The industrial revolution of the nineteenth century with all its\nlabour-saving machines was originally an economy of necessary\nproduction; by the middle of the century it overshot its mark, and\nhastened the world to the brink of the opposite disaster of\nover-production. In the present commercial era we are still suspended\nover that dreadful brink. Nothing can stop the accelerated flux of\nmechanical production; and we are saved from falling into the abyss only\nby the unnatural increase of ordinary consumption. The consumption of\nthe ordinary markets, even when stimulated by the most violent tonics of\nadvertisement, is strictly limited, and the limits have long been\novertaken. The accelerated consumption could only be maintained by the\ndiscovery of new markets, which was undertaken by means of the political\ncatch-words of Imperialism and Colonial Expansion;[41] or else by the\nwholesale destruction of existing supplies. As the number of new markets\nand their capacity for consuming things they don't want is ultimately\njust as limited as the number and capacity of home markets (for\nobviously the time must come when all the Chinamen and Koutso-Vlachs and\nSouth Sea Islanders have already been supplied with ready-made brown\nboots and tinned salmon), only one method remained by which Commerce and\nIndustry might escape, or at least postpone, the penalty of half a\ncentury of over-production. This was by the partial destruction of the\nworld's existing supplies. If this could be arranged, there might be a\ngenuine demand for them to be replaced.\n\n\nSec. 3\n\nWar a form of Destruction\n\nNow as a form of destruction war is easily first. Quite apart from the\nobvious destruction of commodities that takes place when a country is\nravaged and invaded, as in the case of Belgium and Northern France, it\nshould be remembered that the methods of supplying an army in the field\ninvolve the sheer waste or destruction of very nearly half the food and\nequipment provided.[42] This is not necessarily the result, as might be\nexpected, of official incompetence. It may on the contrary be the result\nof official foresight, which must allow in warfare for all the changes\nand chances of communication, and knows that it is better to waste a\nmillion tons of beef than to risk the starvation of a single regiment.\nSuch waste, in other words, is a condition of warfare. Add to this the\npreventive destruction of stores and baggage which takes place whenever\ntroops are compelled to retreat: in this way about a million pounds'\nworth of stores were carefully burned before the evacuation of\nGallipoli; and not a hundred yards of trench is ever abandoned without\nthe jettison of about a hundred pounds' worth of equipment. Add to this\nthe fact that every shot fired, from the mere rifle bullet to the\nlargest shell, does a proportionate amount of material damage when it\nfinds its billet: the bursting of a six-inch shell will do, I suppose,\non an average, as much damage in half a second as an ordinary fire can\ndo in twenty-four hours. Add to this again the fact that the very force\nwhich propels every bullet and every shell is released by destroying by\ninstantaneous combustion a certain amount of valuable chemical products.\nThen, besides all this direct destruction of commodities which must\nultimately be replaced, or which at least some kind contractor may\nplausibly offer to replace, consider for a moment the increased wear and\ntear of every sort of equipment both civil and military, from\nsteam-rollers and rolling-stock to boots and bandages and\nwalking-sticks, which a state of war must involve. Or consider again\nthat the mere mobilisation of an army implies that several hundred\nthousand men, whose annual income before was less than L100 a year, are\nnow living at the rate of L400 a year.[43]\n\nAnyone who cares to examine in detail all these forms of waste and\ndestruction, and all these forms of unnatural and feverish consumption,\nwill begin to understand to what an extent war stimulates the demand by\nwhich alone Trade can survive.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 41: Also, of course, by the campaign for Preferential Tariffs,\nwhich, it was hoped, would have increased consumption by excluding a few\nforeign competitors from colonial markets.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Cf. the many stories of beef and other rations being\nsupplied to troops in such quantities that the units responsible for\ntheir consumption were obliged to bury them. These stories come mostly\nfrom Flanders. At home the same superabundance may have been the undoing\nof many a Quartermaster-Sergeant, who, not knowing what to do with such\na plethora of beef, and having a proper superstition against throwing\naway good food, was tempted to sell it for about a penny a pound to the\nlocal butcher.]\n\n[Footnote 43: And the fact that they are doing so at the public expense\nis, of course, only an additional advantage to the traders who supply\ntheir needs; as they do not risk losing any of their money through bad\ndebts.]\n\n\nSec. 4\n\nWar stands to benefit Neutral as well as Belligerent Nations but not to\nthe same extent\n\nIn Western Europe at least all markets are practically open markets. No\ntariff however scientifically graduated will really divert the natural\nflow of trade to any considerable extent.[44] Consequently it might\nappear that all nations stand to benefit in the same way, but in varying\ndegrees, from the intense local demand set up in the nation at war. Thus\nBritish Trade was exhorted in a sincerely rapacious article by Captain\nDixon-Johnson[45] to snatch the opportunity presented by the Balkan War;\nand the unparalleled boom in American trade during the present war is\nanother obvious example. This suggests at once that the benefit\noccasioned by war is not a national benefit, diffused vertically through\nevery class of the belligerent nation; but a class benefit diffused as\nit were horizontally through the commercial strata of all nations within\nsupplying distance of the centre of disturbance. On the other hand, of\ncourse, the immediate local demand is stronger than the demand\ncommunicated to remoter markets and more easily supplied; in other words\nthe commercial class of the belligerent nation are more immediately and\nmore intensely benefited by the state of war than the same classes of\nneighbouring nations, although in war as in peace the commercial classes\nof every nation are one.[46] Also the outbreak of war, even if it does\nnot entirely sever a country from foreign sources of supply, is bound to\ncause a certain dislocation; if communications are not altogether\ninterrupted they are more difficult and uncertain than in normal times;\nso that the trade of the belligerent country is always given a greater\nimpetus than that of its neutral neighbours, and in such cases a\nparticular industry which has been threatened by the competition of\nforeign imports may be actually rescued from extinction. Even the\ntemporary dislocation of trade is a benefit to trade in the nation at\nwar; for it enables existing stocks to be sold at exaggerated\nprices.[47]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 44: From this it follows incidentally that a high tariff is of\nno advantage to the community as a whole, but only to a particular\nsection of the community. For the idea that it will benefit the whole\ncommunity is based on the assumption that it is possible to divert a\nparticular sort of foreign import; actually the tariff will not exclude\nthe import if there is a natural demand for it, but it will provide an\nexcuse for every dealer wholesale or retail to increase his profit on\nthe article taxed by about double the amount of the tax; i.e. if an\nimported article pays a duty of sixpence, the price to the consumer of\nall such articles whether imported or home-made will be raised a\nshilling.]\n\n[Footnote 45: In the July, 1914, issue of the _Asiatic Review_, to which\nI have already referred.]\n\n[Footnote 46: I need hardly say that in speaking of the commercial class\nI do not include its instrument the workers. The international Socialist\nmovement has not yet succeeded in uniting _them_; but the exhortation\naddressed to them by Marx has been obeyed instead by the capitalists.]\n\n\nSec. 5\n\nThe greater the Capital, the greater the War Profit?\n\nThe over-production in modern industrial states, from which Trade can\nonly be saved by some such catastrophic remedy as war, may be attributed\nnot only to the tyranny of machines, but also to the financial jugglery\nknown as over-capitalisation. If it could be shown that\nover-capitalisation were a consequence of national wealth it would\nfollow that the richer nations would enjoy a greater benefit from war\nthan their poorer neighbours. But this will only be true if we do not\nmeasure national wealth by the average wealth of every citizen; if we\nspeak in this case of national wealth quite apart from any question of\nits equitable distribution, and are careful to distinguish it from\nnational welfare; a wealthy nation in this case would have to mean a\nnation blessed with a class of wealthy capitalists, or supporting a\nlarge parasitic colony of the persons described as financiers; and such\na nation would have as a corollary to be blessed with a class of workers\ndisproportionately large and disproportionately poor. For if industrial\nconditions are fair over-production is impossible.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 47: Here, for instance, is an illuminating sentence from a\nprivate report on Greek trade during the Balkan Wars: \"I commercianti\nGreci hanno guadagnato molto durante la guerra, perche hanno venduto\ntutte le merci che avevano in deposito a prezzi molto piu alti, che la\ngente era obbligata di comperare a cagione che non potevano importare\nmerci straniere.\"]\n\n\nSec. 6\n\nThe Blessings of Invasion\n\nIf war is regarded primarily as a commercial stimulant, we might carry\nthe argument farther and conclude that invasion and even ravage are\nactually beneficial to the trade of a country that suffers them; for\nultimately they must make way for a direct demand on the spot for the\nprimary commodities of life. Houses, fences, roads, factories will all\nhave to be replaced. It is obvious that the war will have to be followed\nby a time of rebuilding.[48] It might be urged that such a phase of\nconvalescence would be retarded or altogether prevented by the lack of\nprivate capital for such an enormous enterprise. But private capital,\nthanks to the credit system, is practically inexhaustible so long as it\nis required for a genuinely productive purpose: and even if it failed in\nthis case to come forward, the money required would certainly be\nadvanced out of the indemnity which will have to be provided for the\ninvaded provinces, or would be guaranteed in some other way by the\nGovernment concerned. In which case Trade, even after the conclusion of\npeace, would rejoice in another period of Government contracts. If it be\nadmitted, however, that we have not sufficient data to make this\nsuggestion more than probable, we can at any rate be certain of the\neffect produced by the mere numbers of an invading army or a defensive\ngarrison. The Jewish traders of Salonica enjoyed a time of unexampled\nprosperity in 1912 and 1913, owing to the mere presence of the Turkish,\nthe Greek and the Bulgarian armies, to whom they sold out at their own\nprices.[49] They are now repeating the process with the English and\nFrench armies; and in the interval they were kept busy restocking the\nMacedonian villages depleted or destroyed during the campaign of 1912.\nAs for the small shopkeepers of Flanders any member of the British\nExpeditionary Force will tell you that they are at present so prosperous\nthat even a German bombardment will hardly drive them from their\ncounters.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 48: Since this chapter was written I have seen a pamphlet with\nthe following title: \"The Chance for British Firms in the Rebuilding of\nBelgium, by a Belgian Contractor. London, Technical Journals, Limited,\n27-29 Tothill Street, Westminster.\"]\n\n\nSec. 7\n\nThe Luxury Trades don't do so badly\n\nThe most obvious if not the only exception to our tale of war profits is\nto be found in the case of the parasitic industries which specialise in\nthe production of the unnecessary. It is not easy rigidly to define the\nluxury trade, for the luxury of one generation is the necessity of the\nnext; but it is enough to suggest a broad idea of the industries that\nfall under this heading. \"The income-tax assessments show,\" says _The\nTimes_,[50] speaking of Berlin after nine months of war, \"that among the\ntrades which have suffered most are fruiterers, breweries,\npublic-houses, bars, cafes, chemists and perfumers, goldsmiths and\nsilversmiths, jewellers, milliners, furniture and piano dealers, and\nmusic and booksellers. Landowners, land speculators, builders and the\ncarrying trade have also suffered.\" We may also notice that in the early\nmonths of the war Florence, the great market of the shoddy \"souvenir\"\nand the \"tourist's delight,\" suffered a good deal more than London,\nalthough Italy still remained neutral. In London itself a good example\nof the parasitic industry are the firms which make ingeniously useless\nsilver toys for rich people to give each other at Christmas.[51]\n\nMany such industries may indeed have suffered in England, although many\nof the trades mentioned in the Berlin list have not been affected in\nLondon, and at least two of them have made conspicuous profits. But in\nany case it is probable that they suffered if at all only during the\nfirst period of the war, when the general feeling of strangeness and\ninsecurity was strong enough to inhibit the shopping instinct of the\nwealthier classes. As soon as these became accustomed to the state of\nwar they reverted with even greater energy to their old pastime of\nspending money: and meanwhile the luxury trades had acquired an entirely\nnew set of customers, for a large part of the profits accumulated in\nother trades were now being spent by a newly enriched class who were\nunaccustomed to save, for the simple reason that they had never before\nbeen in a position to do so. Consequently the luxury trades after a year\nof war had not only recouped their temporary losses but were doing a\nbigger business than ever. The natural adaptability of the trades which\npander to fashion must also be taken into account. A number of them\nafter the first panic recaptured the failing demand by advertising very\nsimple modifications of their ordinary supply. Some, for instance,\nturned to the manufacture of equally plausible superfluities of military\nequipment--such as silver and gold identity disks and watches with\nluminous dials and queer little hieroglyphs in place of the ordinary\nfigures. Trades already so well organised for exploitation could easily\ndefeat any general attempt at social economy. Thus for women of the\nupper middle class the most obvious form of war economy was to carry on\nwith only a slight alteration of last year's dresses; and such was their\ndeclared intention when their hands were forced by the Dressmakers'\nrevolutionary change in the fashion which substituted the full skirt for\nthe tight skirt of 1913-14. The extraordinary ingenuity of this move\nwas, not only that it thwarted any good intention of not buying a new\ndress this year, it being manifestly impossible to \"alter\" a tight skirt\ninto a crinoline, but also that the extra cloth required for the\nunusually full skirts more than compensated the trade for the continued\nabstention of a few unfashionable obstinates, as well as for the extra\ncost of labour.[52]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 49: One Jewish contractor supplied corn and fodder to all\nthree armies. As soon as his Turkish customers had capitulated, he\ntendered for the supply of the victorious Greeks, and he still had\nenough to spare for the Bulgarians when they entered the town.]\n\n[Footnote 50: May 17, 1915.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Such \"labour-saving devices,\" for instance, as \"poached\negg servers.\"]\n\n\nSec. 8\n\nTrade Profits in war not shared by the Nation but confined to Employers\n\nThe trade profits which are thus directly stimulated by the conditions\nof war, do not imply the prosperity of the Trade as a whole, if a Trade\nis understood to mean a certain section of the nation including in a\nsort of guild or hierarchy representatives of every class engaged in a\nparticular Trade. They do imply the prosperity of a particular class,\nfor they are all employers' profits, profits on the capital involved.\nUnfortunately the profits of the Capitalists do not involve the profits\nof the Labourers, and cannot therefore be tested by statistics of\nunemployment. But of course the fluctuations of unemployment do very\nmaterially affect the opportunities of Trade, and it might reasonably be\nargued that the apparent profits created by War are really modified by\nthe conditions of the Labour market or otherwise equitably distributed\namong the general population. Unfortunately it is quite easy to show\nthat the one policy of employers during the present war has been to\nmaintain their profits without any concern for the general population,\nand that the effect of war has been to increase the profits of Capital\nnot only by increasing the demand but also by making the Employers\nincreasingly independent of the labourers' claims.\n\nAt the beginning of War the Employer, on the grounds of general\ninsecurity and \"not knowing what was going to happen next,\" cut down\nwages and raised the cry of \"Business as Usual\"; which meant that\nbusiness was so much better than usual that he was afraid it could not\npossibly last. So he cut down wages, laughed at buyers who offered him\nthe usual prices, and charged L48 a ton for hides and 6s. 10d. for a\nyard of cloth that usually cost half a crown. If the private buyer would\nnot pay his prices the Government would. It was indeed too good to last,\nfor such prosperity became impossible to conceal:[53] it also reduced\nthe margin of unemployment on which he had always depended, and he soon\nfound himself obliged to return to the normal rate of wages which he had\npaid before the war. He was disappointed to find that \"Business as\nUsual\" meant wages as usual, but he struggled on, imploring the\nassistance of the Government in order to \"capture Germany's Trade.\"\nWorse was to follow: after nine months of war recruiting for the army\nhad begun in earnest, and \"there was on the whole less unemployment in\nGreat Britain than at any previous moment in the present century.\"[54]\nBut he was determined to \"carry on,\" and for the sake of the Government\nintroduced child labour into his workshops.[55] Meanwhile, however, the\ncost of living was steadily rising, and after a year of war, and of\nprofits, the labourers' demand for an increase of wages could not be\naltogether ignored. The employer decided to carry the war into the\nenemy's country. The nation must hang together, he said, and all work\nwas practically national work. So he boldly accused his workmen of lack\nof patriotism, and roundly declared that \"but for the trade unions the\nwar would probably have been over by this time, with a victory for the\nAllies.... Organised labour is the rotten limb of the body politic,\nwhich must be cut off if health is to be restored to the system.\"[56] It\nwas hard work, but in spite of the shortage of labour and in spite of\nthe rise in the cost of living, he managed to hold wages down by\nrepeating that any demand for a rise in wages was unpatriotic.[57] One\nby one, on the plea of urgent Government work, he obtained the\nsuspension of all Trade Union rules and thus deprived his workmen of\neven the natural rights of negotiation; and when after fifteen months of\nwar they again ventured to raise their voices on the Clyde, he openly\naccused them of being paid by German agitators.[58] On the whole\ntherefore he has been extraordinarily successful in keeping his profits\nto himself, and as the present demand is likely to continue for some\ntime after the war, his chief anxiety at present is to maintain after\nthe war the compulsory relaxation of Trade Union rules which nothing\nless than war could accomplish. The slight danger that a prolonged war\nmay kill off a considerable part of his margin of unemployment is more\nthan balanced by his successful introduction of women's labour: and he\nmeans that War, in addition to the actual profits of his Trade, shall\ngive him the enormous potential advantage of having broken the Trade\nUnions.[59]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 52: As a matter of fact, nearly all the luxury trades cut down\ntheir scale of wages during the first year of the war; and many of these\nostentatiously gave to some War Charity a fraction of the sum thus\nextracted from their employees. I suppose it would be libellous to give\nexamples.]\n\n[Footnote 53: Though frantic attempts to conceal it have been made since\nthe Tax on War Profits was introduced.]\n\n[Footnote 54: The _New Statesman_, May 22, 1915.]\n\n[Footnote 55: See above, p. 47, note 4. Some illuminating details are\ngiven in the _Nation_, May 22, 1915, concerning the unscrupulous plea of\nGovernment work in order to excuse the employment of children.]\n\n[Footnote 56: The _Saturday Review_, September 18, 1915.]\n\n[Footnote 57: \"The shortage\" too was a permanent excuse just as good for\nholding prices up as for holding wages down. Cf. a correspondent in _The\nTimes_, May 17, 1916: \"This position of affairs makes one doubt if the\nshortage in these articles (bottles, jars, tins, boxes, etc.) is as\nstated, or that the shortage pays better and the various trades do not\nwish the tension to be in any way relieved.\"]\n\n[Footnote 58: I hope it will not soon be forgotten that _Punch_ was not\nashamed to endorse this charge.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Cf. Mr. Emil Davies in the _New Statesman_, April 8, 1916:\n\"My impression is that the annoyance of Clyde manufacturers at the\npresent labour troubles is not wholly free from a certain grim\nsatisfaction. They are not anxious to see carried out the pledge that\nshop conditions should go back to the pre-war basis, and, they argue, if\nthe men are discredited with the public, it will be all to the good of\nthe employers in the big industrial struggle they look upon as\ninevitable after the war. They regard this struggle without anxiety and\nare accumulating funds; some of them talk of special funds being created\nfor the purpose by the employers in association. These are the\nimpressions gained from conversations with prominent members of the\nGlasgow business world.\"]\n\n\nSec. 9\n\nTrade Profit and National Loss\n\nIt need not therefore be supposed that the War Profits, of which there\nis such abundant evidence, conflict at all with Mr. Norman Angell's\ncontention[60] that all modern war, even if the military operations end\nin a military success, is futile and unprofitable from the national\npoint of view. The general truth seems to be that War, whether it be\napparently victorious or apparently unsuccessful, is always profitable\nfor a small commercial class in each belligerent nation.[61]\nUnfortunately the profits thus earned by the economic effects of war are\nnot diffused vertically throughout the whole nation from top to bottom,\nbut rather horizontally along a shallow commercial stratum in every\nnation. In every nation war diminishes the national wealth, but\nconcentrates the residue with greater inequality in one particular\nclass. The representative of this class, commonly called the Capitalist,\nis the real cosmopolitan, because his interests in each belligerent\nnation are identical, and the war, successful or not, contributes to his\nfinancial advantage. It is an illuminating coincidence that the classes\nin every nation which most enthusiastically demand the violent\nprosecution of the war seem to be proportionately anxious to annul the\nhardly-won privileges of democracy. Thus the _Saturday Review_, in a\npassage already quoted, solemnly, openly and unforgettably declares the\nsecret wishes of the militarists; and we may be surprised to consider\nhow many safeguards of democracy, how many rights of free thought and\nfree speech, how many of the precarious limitations of sweating and\nchild-labour and wage-slavery have been quietly suppressed since the\nbeginning of the war. But if war is ultimately unprofitable for the\nnation as a whole, it might be argued that Trade itself must ultimately\nbe involved in the national loss. The answer is that even if the\nTrader's interests were identical with those of the nation and were\nultimately bound to suffer with the nation as a whole, he would\nundoubtedly ignore the possibility of a loss so much remoter than his\nimmediate and obvious profits; especially as he is certainly ignorant of\nthe economic fact that in modern times military victory and military\ndefeat are equally unprofitable, and if he ever did pause to consider\nthe results for the whole nation he would certainly, perhaps in good\nfaith, identify the national interest with his own, and assume, for\npsychological rather than economic reasons, that his own interests\ndemanded a military victory; real ignorance and emotional excitement\nsufficing to explain his apparently hypocritical professions of\npatriotism. As a matter of fact however his private interests are not\ndependent on those of the whole nation; for commercial wealth is not the\nsame as national wealth, and prosperous Trade is quite consistent with\nnational unhappiness. The average citizen of Switzerland is more\ncontented than the average citizen of any of the great commercial powers\nof the world; and some of the causes that make for commercial\nprosperity, causes of which War is not the least effective, actually\ndecrease the civic efficiency of the greater number of the population,\nand reduce their chances of happiness. \"If an expanding trade,\" writes\nMr. R. B. Cunninghame Graham,[62] \"is the sure sign of national\nhappiness clearly the four countries, the figures of whose trade are\ntabulated (Chile, Peru, Brazil and Argentine) should be amongst the\nhappiest in the world. Yet still a doubt creeps in whether expanding\nTrade is the sure test of happiness; for recently I have revisited some\nof the countries of the River Plate that I knew thirty years ago, and it\nappears to me that they were happier then. True, they were not so\nrich.... Wealth has increased, but so has poverty....\"\n\nWar is an artificial process for accelerating that concentration of\nwealth in the hands of a small class which distinguishes the present\nunholy stage of political development.[63]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 60: _The Great Illusion, passim_.]\n\n[Footnote 61: This is not necessarily inconsistent with H. N.\nBrailsford's similar remark (_The War of Steel and Gold_, p. 163): \"War\nis a folly from the standpoint of national self-interest; it may none\nthe less be perfectly rational from the standpoint of a small but\npowerful governing class.\"]\n\n[Footnote 62: Reviewing a work on South America in _The Nation_,\nNovember 6, 1915.]\n\n[Footnote 63: This process is further accelerated by the fact that the\nWar is being paid for very largely by means of Loans, subscribed\nnaturally by the richer classes; in future the richer classes will be\nreceiving the interest on these loans. But in order to pay this interest\nthe State will have to resort to taxation, some part of which will fall\npresumably on the poor. See Professor Pigou's _Economy and Finance of\nthe War_.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n     Candide etait etendu dans la rue et couvert de debris. Il disait a\n     Pangloss: Helas! procure-moi un pen de vin et d'huile; je me meurs.\n     Ce tremblement de terre n'est pas une chose nouvelle, repondit\n     Pangloss; la ville de Lima eprouva les memes secousses en Amerique\n     l'annee passee; memes causes, memes effets: il y a certainement une\n     trainee de souphre sous terre depuis Lima jusqu'a Lisbonne. Rien\n     n'est plus probable, dit Candide; mais, pour Dieu, un peu d'huile\n     et de vin. Comment, probable? repliqua le philosophe; je soutiens\n     que la chose est demontree.\n\n     Candide perdit connaissance, ... et Pangloss lui apporta un peu\n     d'eau d'une fontaine voisine.\n\n     VOLTAIRE, _Candide_.\n\n\nSec. 1\n\nDialectics round the Death-bed\n\nPhilosophical aloofness is all very well in its way, but while we argue\nabout economic causes and attempt to induce a philosophy of earthquakes,\nour bright young democracy lies bleeding under the ruins. The urgent\nnecessity is a little first aid, a little cessation of the killing. I\ndon't know how many young men in different parts of the world have been\ndeliberately and scientifically murdered during the writing of this\nprotest. England alone, who has been criticised for her delay in\nexposing her youth to the slaughter, is having about half a million of\nher best citizens stabbed or pierced or crushed or mutilated or poisoned\nor torn to pieces in one year[64] of modern warfare. And life is not the\nonly instrument of vital progress that is being thrown away. Britannia\nhas beaten her trident into a shovel, and with it is shovelling gold;\nand not only gold, but youth and love and happiness into the deep sea.\nThe belligerent nations are frantically engaged in destroying two\nthousand years of education and all the accumulated capital of humanity.\nOnly the enemies of civilisation, the sellers of arms and the sowers of\nhatred, are growing rich on its ruins. It is impossible to deny that the\nlonger the war continues the greater will be the subsequent sufferings,\nspiritual and material, of every nation engaged. It is impossible to\nmaintain that any nation or class or individual will be any better in\nany respect for the Great War, with the single exception of that\nparasitic class who, as a class, and therefore perhaps not consciously,\nare chiefly responsible for its inception. We must have Peace first and\ncongresses afterwards. The survivors of civilisation cannot discuss a\nlasting settlement while they are still under fire.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 64: The total British casualties from the beginning of the war\ntill July 18, 1915, were given as 321,889, of whom 61,384 were killed.]\n\n\nSec. 2\n\nGerman Responsibility for the War\n\nNor is it necessary to continue the slaughter while we argue about which\nbelligerent must bear the chief responsibility for the outbreak. The\ndialectical exercises of the German Chancellor and Mr. Asquith are so\nfutile that they remind us only of two naughty children who drag out\ntheir squabble with stubborn outcries of \"He began it.\" The first\nconsideration is to stop fighting. Such academic discussions are\nnecessarily endless, for the simple reason that every nation has its\nfaults, to which criminal motives can always be attached: every nation\nhas its fools, whom its enemies can describe as typical representatives.\nThe question of responsibility for the Great War must be left to the\nhistorians of the future. I am quite confident (though even Viscount\nGrey or Professor Gilbert Murray cannot prove) that they will hold\nGermany responsible: but I am equally confident that the blame they\nthrow on the nation responsible for the war will be less pronounced than\nthe praise they will reserve for the nation which first has the courage\nto speak of peace. My belief in Germany's responsibility is based\nlargely on German apologetics and strengthened by the evidence of\ncommercial conditions in Germany before the outbreak. Professor\nMillioud, for instance, has shown that \"German industry was built up on\na top-heavy system of credit, unable to keep solvent without expansion,\nand unable to expand sufficiently without war.\"[65] Or if a good\nworking test of German responsibility were needed it would be sufficient\nto point out that no nation innocent of aggressive intentions would have\ndrafted such an ultimatum as that which Austria, with German connivance,\nsent to Serbia; and that no nation anxious for war would have drafted\nsuch a conciliatory reply as that which Serbia returned to Austria by\nRussia's instructions. It is in fact clear that as long ago as 1913\nAustria had determined to crush Serbia, and that in 1913 that\ndetermination was only postponed; and postponed not, as we thought at\nthe time, by the tact of Lord Grey at the Conference of London, but only\nby Italy's refusal to join in the adventure, as we now know from the\nrevelations of San Giuliano and Salandra. Similarly, knowing as we do\nthat England is no exception to the rule that no imperial nation can be\nwholly compact of righteousness, we might hesitate to accept _The\nTimes'_ version of British innocence, and we might hesitate to accept\nLord Bryce's report on the German atrocities in Belgium, knowing as we\ndo that it is based almost entirely on the hearsay evidence of refugees\nwho would be anxious to distinguish themselves as witnesses from the\ngeneral ruck of destitution; but it happens that the general charges of\nGerman aggressiveness and German brutality are fully corroborated by\nGerman literature.[66] Unfortunately these distinctions between brutal\nand chevaleresque methods of warfare remain only questions of method;\nthey concern manners rather than morals, and are as irrelevant to our\nhopes for the abolition of war as the questions of diplomatic method\nalready mentioned.[67] Equally irrelevant, in any discussion of the\npossibility of substituting \"compulsory arbitration\" for war, is the\nattempt to distinguish between aggressive and defensive war, or to\nthrow all the blame of aggression on either of the two belligerents; for\nthe simple reason that each belligerent will perhaps never believe and\nwill quite certainly never admit that his own intentions were anything\nbut defensive or altruistic.[68] The _locus classicus_ for such\nprotestations of innocence occurs in the Italian Green Book, where\nAustrian diplomats may be found declaring, _with every appearance of\nsincerity_, that the invasion of Serbia was a purely defensive measure.\nAnd in a sense, in such a well-armed continent, every aggression is\nindeed a fore-arming against the future. It might also be suggested that\nthe crime of aggression is an offence not against an individual but\nagainst the peace of the community: and until the European community is\nconstituted the guilt of such a crime cannot be brought home to either\nof the belligerents.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 65: _The Ruling Caste and Frenzied Trade in Germany_, by\nMaurice Millioud, Professor of Sociology in the University of Lausanne.\n(1915.) Reviewed in the _Manchester Guardian_ by R. C. K. E.]\n\n[Footnote 66: All that we need know, for instance, of German military\nconduct in Belgium is contained in the following communication made to\nthe _Koelnische Zeitung_ by Captain Walter Brum, adjutant to the\nGovernor-General of Belgium, who may be presumed to know the inner\nhistory of these appalling transactions:--\n\n\"The principle according to which the whole community must be punished\nfor the fault of a single individual is justified by the theory of\n_terrorisation_. The innocent must suffer with the guilty; if the latter\nare unknown the innocent must even be punished in their place, and note\nthat the punishment is applied not _because_ a misdeed has been\ncommitted, but _in order that_ no more shall be committed. To burn a\nneighbourhood, shoot hostages, decimate a population which has taken up\narms against the army--all this is far less a reprisal than the sounding\nof a _note of warning_ for the territory not yet occupied. Do not doubt\nit; it was as a note of warning that Baltin, Herve, Louvain, and Dinant\nwere burned. The burnings and bloodshed at the opening of the war showed\nthe great cities of Belgium how perilous it was for them ...\" etc.]\n\n[Footnote 67: Chapter I, Sec.Sec. 9-11.]\n\n[Footnote 68: See below, note on p. 113; and compare Brailsford, _The\nWar of Steel and Gold_, p. 22, on \"preparations which are always\nsupposed to be defensive,\" and p. 264, on the methods used to support\nthe plea that large navies are purely \"defensive.\"]\n\n\nSec. 3\n\nThe Value of German Culture\n\nThe question whether Germany is actually attempting or would be\njustified in attempting to impose her culture on the rest of Europe; or\nwhether England has good reasons for the limitation or suppression of\nGerman culture, is another side-issue. German culture (in Matthew\nArnold's correct use of the word, meaning, that is, the average of\nintellectual and social civilisation), has not on a general inspection\nmuch to be proud of. The modern literature of Germany is largely a\ntranscription of Russian, French and English authors, and it is\nsignificant that among foreign authors the widest success is reserved\nfor purveyors of _le faux bon_, writers whose work is distinguished by\nits spirited failure quite to attain the first-class.[69] The most\npromising of modern authors writing in the German language, Schnitzler,\nis an Austrian Jew. Hauptmann, the most distinguished and original of\nGerman dramatists, has for thirty years been writing plays which would\npass for imitations of Mr. John Galsworthy's failures. Sudermann's style\nreminds one of a snail crawling over the Indian lilies which he\ndescribes.... Germany, it is true, has reason to be proud of her\ntheatres, but that is a matter of State enterprise, rather than an\nindication of national culture. The German State has been efficient\nenough to perceive that good theatres are a fundamental necessity of\nnational education, and that good theatres, owing to the excessive rents\nthey have to pay, can never be kept going without a State subsidy. But\nthese admirable theatres can hardly be called the vehicles of a high\nnative culture. Their famous Reinhardts are more efficient only because\nmore acquisitive than our own Jewish impresarios. The ideas they have\nacquired are chiefly Russian or English: and they have profited by the\nideas of Granville Barker and Gordon Craig in order to produce the plays\nof Shakespeare and Shaw--(just as industrial Germany profited by the\nideas of Bessemer[70] and Perkins). Germany's claim to artistic\nvitality, to genuinely original culture, can be supported only by a\ncertain distinct excellence in sculpture and caricature, two arts which\noften seem to go hand in hand, perhaps because both are based on a\nprecise simplification of form. But for the activity of a small band of\nsculptors and caricaturists centred for the most part in Munich,[71] we\nmight be content to regard Germany not as a fount of culture but rather\nas one of the world's workshops, a well-organised _ergastulum_ for\ndealing with the drudgery of modern civilisation, for manipulating\nsecondary products and extracting derivatives, a large factory for the\nproduction of dictionaries, drugs and electrical machinery.[72]\n\nThe extraordinary efficiency of Germany, _as a workshop_, is not due to\nany intellectual pre-eminence of the nation as a whole. It is most\nclearly and emphatically due to the fact that the German autocracy,\nwhatever its political iniquity, has had the intelligence and the\nnational solidarity to choose its business men from among the brains of\nthe community. In Germany any man of conspicuous intellectual capacity\nmay be picked out, roughly speaking, and assigned to the direction of a\nparticular industry. In England we achieve inefficiency by the contrary\nprocess, and are only willing to regard a man as capable and revere him\nas an \"expert\" if he happens to have been occupied exclusively for a\ncertain number of years in the narrow routine of a particular subject.\nThis pernicious fallacy of the \"Expert\" is actually preached in England\nas a means to the very Efficiency which in fact it almost invariably\nexcludes. It is commonly assumed that no man can write a good play\nunless he has been a bad actor, or that a retired admiral, quite\nincapable of grasping any general idea that was not popular in the Navy\ntwenty years ago or in the smoking-room of his club, would be better\nable to direct the affairs of the Navy than Mr. Winston Churchill or Mr.\nBalfour.[73] There is a similar outcry for a government of \"Business\nMen,\" although anyone who happens to have heard a couple of average\nbusiness men discuss a problem of their own business in one of their own\noffices will hardly be able to deny that a capable poet and a capable\npainter would have settled the question in a quarter of the time.\nInstead of superstitiously believing that only \"Business Men\" can be\nefficient, Germany picks out her business men (and her bureaucrats) for\ntheir general efficiency. She has attained efficiency by abandoning the\nfallacy of the Expert in favour of the maxim of Confucius--\"the Higher\ntype of man is not like a vessel which is designed for some special\nuse.\"[74]\n\nBut from the fact that German industry and German theatres are better\nmanaged than our own it does not follow that there is any natural or\nnational antagonism between England and Germany. The real hatred of\nGermany if it exists in England at all should be found among what it is\nbecoming the fashion to call \"the intelligentsia.\" Such a purely\nintellectual hatred of the sentimental melodrama of _Faust_ and of the\nsemitic luxuriance of Wagner and Reinhardt is not likely to become a\ndemocratic motive in England. Here brains are always unpopular, and Park\nLane will never be stormed by the mob until it is inhabited by the\nBernard Shaws, the Lowes Dickinsons and the Bertrand Russells, instead\nof by German financiers.\n\nThere is no national hatred between England and Germany. The two peoples\nare natural friends. Even the men in the trenches (or perhaps I should\nsay particularly the men in the trenches), fraternise with their\nopponents whenever they get the chance.[75] Even now a press campaign of\na few months would suffice to make Germany popular in England; and if\nthat were ever to happen, which is not improbable, only the\n\"intellectuals,\" who are most strongly opposed to this war, would still\nfind much to dislike, but not to fight about, in the national culture\nproduced by the German character.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 69: E.g. Oscar Wilde and Artzibashev.]\n\n[Footnote 70: \"The whole industrial expansion of Germany dates from the\nintroduction of the Bessemer process in 1879, by which its supplies of\niron became possible to work at a profit.\"--_Bertrand Russell_.]\n\n[Footnote 71: It is unnecessary to refer at length to the world-famous\ncaricaturists of _Simplicissimus_, although it may be noted that the\nbest of them, Gulbrannson, is a Norwegian, while his chief rival, Heine,\nis a Jew. Munich sculptors whose names might be mentioned are\nHildebrand, Taschner, Hahn, and Wrba.]\n\n[Footnote 72: Even such scientific achievements as those of Ehrlich and\nOstwald should be regarded as results of regulated industry and diligent\nexperiment.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Another instance of the fallacy is the quite unjustified\nprejudice in the Army in favour of \"Regular\" officers.]\n\n[Footnote 74: The foundation of German business efficiency not on the\npractical science of the specialist but on theoretic and general mental\nexercise is further illustrated by the great and increasing prevalence\nof Latin and Greek in German education ... while again our own \"Business\nExperts\" are reversing the process. The passages that follow are quoted\nfrom a letter of Dr. Rice Holmes in _The Times_ of August 11, 1916.\n\n\"In German schools not only are classics taught more systematically and\nmore thoroughly than in all but a few of our own, but they are learned\nby a greater proportion of the population; and, moreover, the hours\ndevoted to natural science in those schools in which it is taught are\nfewer than in our public schools.... Since 1903 the number of German\nboys receiving a classical education has steadily increased. In 1904\nthere were 196,175 pupils in schools (_Gymnasien_ and _Realgymnasien_)\nwhere Latin is compulsory, of whom 153,680 belonged to the classical\nschools (_Gymnasien_), and therefore learned Greek as well (W. Lexis,\n_Unterrichtswesen im Deutschen Reich_, ii. 218); in 1911, as Mr. R. W.\nLivingstone has shown (_The Times Educational Supplement_, April 4, p.\n49, col. 2), the corresponding figures were 240,000 and 170,000; and in\n1908, 'out of a total of 31,622 students entering 18 out of 21 German\nuniversities (Munich, Erlangen, and Wurzburg not reporting), ... only\n7-1/2 per cent entered without Latin or Greek' (Professor Francis W.\nKelsey, _Latin and Greek in American Education_, 1911, p. 43). \"Moege das\nStudium der griechischen und roemischen Literatur immerfort die Basis der\nhoeheren Bildung bleiben.\" So wrote the greatest of the Germans; and the\ncountrymen of Goethe, whose genius was scientific as well as poetical,\nhave not forgotten his words. On the other hand, in the modern schools\n(_Realgymnasien_ and _Oberrealschulen_) only a small fraction of the\ntime-table--from two hours a week (out of twenty-five) to six (out of\nthirty-one)--is devoted to natural science. To anyone who has read\nMatthew Arnold's _Higher Schools and Universities in Germany_, or Dr. M.\nE. Sadler's _The Realschulen in Berlin_, or who is acquainted with the\nopinions expressed by Helmholtz, A. W. Hofmann, Bauer, and other\n'eminent scientific professors,' it will not appear paradoxical that the\nobject of thus restricting the hours devoted to the teaching of natural\nscience in schools is to promote the scientific efficiency of the German\nnation. It was with this object that by the regulations published in\n1901 the time devoted to Latin in the _Realgymnasien_ was increased. And\nthose who do not learn natural science learn what for the nation is\nequally important--the value of scientific method.\"]\n\n[Footnote 75: The Daily News, October 20, 1915:--\n\n\"A pathetic story is told in the _Vorwaerts_ by Herr Adolf Koester (who\nacts as war correspondent for the German Socialist Press) in connection\nwith the recent fighting at Hooge. A German soldier told him of a young\nScotsman whom he had killed with a hand-grenade in whose pocket he had\nfound a little pocket-book:--\n\n\"'We looked through the booklet. It contained postcards from the front,\nfrom home, from a sister and from a sweetheart--photographs from the\nbattlefields of brave soldiers and from home. There was also a small\namateur photograph, rather badly made, of a young girl sitting at a\ntypewriter. She had blonde hair and on the back of the photo she had\nwritten: \"Look at the waves of my hair and note also how very diligent I\nam\" (English in the original). One of us asked the soldier to give him\nthis photograph. But he replied: \"You can take the whole book, photos,\npostcards, etc. But this picture I will keep in memory of my friend.\" By\n\"his friend\" he meant the Scotsman whom he had killed by his\nhand-grenade.'\"]\n\n\nSec. 4\n\nThe Manufacture of Hatred\n\nBut if there is no natural hatred between the two belligerent\nprotagonists, there is a feverish production of the artificial variety.\nIndeed this diligent manufacture of hatred is probably the most\ndemoralising result of warfare, particularly disastrous in its ethical\neffect on the individual. It proceeds by the ordinary methods of deceit,\nsuppression of the true and suggestion of the untrue, and by means of\nthe newspapers this process of moral degeneration is sometimes actively\ndirected, sometimes only permitted or encouraged by the Governments\nconcerned. The London press is always ready to swallow the pathetic\nfabrications of unscrupulous refugees, and publishes with joy any\nRotterdam rumour about German bestiality; but refuses to print any\nreport however authentic which ventures to suggest that the Germans are\nas human as ourselves. There was, for instance, a Canadian woman, Dr.\nScarlett-Synge, who under the aegis of her medical diploma, returned\nfrom Serbia through Germany, and discovered that some of the German\ninternment camps are not as bad as they are commonly believed to be.\nWhatever her qualifications and opportunities for forming a correct\nopinion, and they happen to have been particularly good, there is no\ndoubt that this woman's report was of the highest interest. Yet not a\nsingle daily paper in England would consider its publication, on the\nground presumably that it might reduce the national inflammation and\nthereby \"prejudice recruiting.\" As if true patriotism, sane and lovely,\nhad anything to do with the pathological condition of hatred.\n\"Recruiting be damned,\" says the patriotic philosopher, \"_odium nunquam\npotest esse bonum_.\"[76] The method of distortion is also abundantly\nused by journalists of both parties. German hatred of England has often\nbeen stoked up by isolated mistranslations of sentences from _The\nTimes_, and English and French journalists have not been slow in\nfollowing the German example. It is said that after the fall of Antwerp\nthe _Koelnische Zeitung_ announced that \"as soon as the fall of Antwerp\nwas known the church bells in Germany were rung,\" a harmless message\nwhich was successively distorted by the _Matin_, the _Daily Mail_, and\nthe _Corriere della Sera_, until it finally reappeared in the _Matin_ in\nthe following form: \"According to the information of the _Corriere della\nSera_ from London and Cologne it is confirmed that the barbaric\nconquerors of Antwerp punished the unfortunate Belgian priests for their\nheroic refusal to ring the church bells by hanging them as living\nclappers to the bells with their heads downwards.\"[77]\n\nThe Manufacture of Hatred is unfortunately become a part of the\nNationalist Movement in nearly all modern European States. The spurious\nNationalism which is the result not of race but of education, depends\nfor its existence almost entirely on so-called ethnological propaganda\nand continues to thrive by the cultivation of two propositions, neither\nof which is true: that all the members of one national group are\nracially different from all the members of the neighbouring group; and\nthat this racial difference naturally and necessarily and properly\nimplies the mutual hatred of the two nations. They proclaim, in fact,\nthat certain nations are the \"natural enemies \" of certain others, by\nhating which they are only fulfilling the national function of\nself-realisation. By such arguments, which have no genuine ethnological\nfoundation, the false prophets of nationalism are filling Europe with\nthe racial prejudice of artificial Kelts, artificial Poles, and\nartificial Teutons. Of course race hatred between Slav and Teuton is no\nmore \"natural\" than family hatred between Jones and Robinson; and even\nif it were, even that is if the cultures of two neighbouring races were\nmutually exclusive, it could still be argued--as it must in any case be\nargued--that no nation is racially pure. The last \"Pole\" I met proudly\nprofessed that the hatred of Russia was _in his blood_. Yet he was born\nin Bessarabia, and it was therefore not surprising that his facial type\nwas distinctly Roumanian; he came, that is, if race means anything at\nall, of a Graeco-Latin stock, and his hatred of Russia, which seemed to\nbe the beginning and the end of his programme of \"Polish nationalism,\"\nwas the result of a few years of neglected education. Half the\nconflicting \"Nationalisms\" of Europe are programmes of artificial\nhatred, the propagandists of which may actually be of the same blood as\ntheir opponents; a single generation suffices for the manufacture of the\nracial enthusiast, which is often completed by a modification of the\nfamily name. Even Greeks and Bulgars are frequently of common descent.\nWhen a Macedonian village changes hands the Greek Karagiozes has been\nknown to develop into the Bulgarian Karagiozoff; and a Mazarakis will\nboast a racial incompatibility with his second cousin Madjarieff. The\nsame process for the manufacture of nationalism may be detected at the\nother end of Europe: at Mons of glorious memory there was a Walloon with\nthe good old Walloon name of Le Grand, whose grandfather had been an\nequally enthusiastic Fleming with the good old Flemish name of De\nGroodt.\n\nTrue nationalism may indeed be differentiated by the absence of this\nartificial element of ethnological hatred. True nationalism is simply\nthe feeling for the small independent community, a movement for the\nautonomy of the local group. No true manifestation of the nationalist\nmovement in Europe is ever opposed to other nationalisms; but all alike\nare involved in a desperate political conflict with their common enemy\nImperialism.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 76: Spinoza, _Ethica_, IV, 45.]\n\n[Footnote 77: _Labour Leader_, March 30, 1916, quoting an address by Mr.\nArthur Ponsonby, M.P.--I have not been able to verify these references,\nso I give the story only as an example of the method of progressive\ndistortion, and not as one that actually occurred, though it may have\ndone so.]\n\n\nSec. 5\n\nImperialism the Enemy\n\nImperialism, on the other hand, is the feeling for large dominions and\nis very often only an unreasoning lust for the possession of\nterritory:[78] surviving perhaps from the time when the land of the\ncommunity was regarded as the reserved hunting-ground of the tribal\nchief, or at least as the private estate of the national monarch. But in\nso far as this passionate desire for extending the superficial territory\nunder the central government is a reasoning desire, in so far that is as\nattempts have been made to justify by retrospective theories the almost\ninstinctive achievements of painting the map red, it is fairly clear\n(although the issues have been confused by altruistic and Kiplingesque\nbut not by any means unfounded views about the White Man's Burden) that\nImperialism is based on the insatiable claims of over-productive\ncommerce. Commerce at any rate is the _ex post facto_ excuse for the\nfoundation of the British Empire, and if it can no longer be pleaded as\na reason for the maintenance of the British Empire, it is simply because\nthe British Empire is no longer an empire, but for the most part a\nfederation of autonomous states.[79] But Imperialism has only been\nscotched by the unconscious wisdom of English political development. It\nstill unhappily survives not only in the intermittent demand for the\nacquisition of fresh colonial territory, but also, in its crudest form,\nwithout even the shadow of an excuse commercial or altruistic, in the\ncontinued subjection of Ireland to English rule. We must not be\nsurprised if the imperialistic elements of the State receive after the\nwar a new lease of life from the mutual encouragement of commerce and\nmilitarism.\n\nThe commercial classes of course support Imperialism because, with an\nobtuseness permitted only to our \"business men,\" they believe that the\nacquisition of more colonies still means the discovery of new\nmarkets.[80] They have not yet realised that nowadays all markets are\npractically open markets, and that no tariff can effectively exclude\ngoods for which there is any demand, for the simple reason that an\neffective demand cheerfully pays an increased price. All nations in fact\nstand to share fairly the commercial advantage of each other's colonial\nmarkets: and it might even be shown by a little simple book-keeping that\nthe particular balance any nation gains from trading with a colony of\nits own must be debited with the expense of governing that colony. In\nshort, the commercial excuse for Imperialism is actually obsolete. Yet\ncommerce continues to support Imperialism, and although the original\nreason for this support is no longer valid, it is still, unconsciously\nperhaps but very methodically, serving its own interests by this\nsupport, in so far as Imperialism involves militarism (or \"navalism\")\nand so leads to the probability of war. But even if the commercial\nreasons which constitute the only possible excuse for Imperialism were\nstill valid, it would still remain equally valid and much more important\nthat Imperialism is bad in itself, the enemy of liberty and the begetter\nof arrogance.\n\nImperialism is bad on general grounds because it implies a\ncentralisation of authority which violates the natural rights of\nnationalities. A nationality, as has already been suggested, means not\nnecessarily a pure racial enclave, but simply a small local group, in\nthe formation of which similarity of \"race,\" religion, and culture will\nnot be ignored but will naturally be considered as modifications of\nprimarily geographical boundaries. The right of nationalities to local\nautonomy, to deal again only with the simplest general reason, is based\non the idea of democracy, the exercise of a political voice being\nregarded as a natural and inalienable right of the free citizen.\nDemocracy means representative government, and representative government\nsimply does not work in a large and mixed community of more than twenty\nmillions.[81] Hence the right of nationalities to local autonomy is\nfundamental, and is inconsistent with Imperialism as such.\n\nImperialism is bad because it is based on conquest, implies a \"subject\nrace,\" and sooner or later will have to be maintained by war. It breeds\na conquering and commercial spirit, which is never satisfied unless it\nis carrying some one else's burden (at a high freight). The imperialist\nplutocracy will then find itself so much occupied with other people's\naffairs that it will be neglecting domestic politics altogether: and\nthis neglect will be the more disastrous in so far as poverty and\nservitude will have increased at the same rate as luxury. The citizens\nof an Imperialist state will be unable to control their commercial\nmasters, and, as Rousseau said of the English, will soon find themselves\na nation of slaves[82]: and that not only because a policy of conquest\nis incompatible with democracy; but also because the lust of conquest\nand the arrogance of\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 78: H. N. Brailsford (_The War of Steel and Gold_, p. 125)\nspeaks of an \"indifferent democracy.\" Unhappily our democracy is not\nindifferent to Imperialism, for it is misled to believe that mere\nexpansion is somehow grand and good; the only geography it learns at\nschool is miscalled \"patriotic\" because it is designed to encourage this\nbelief.]\n\n[Footnote 79: I.e. as a real \"Empire,\" the British Empire was a failure,\nas all Empires must be. It has been a success since it ceased to be an\nEmpire about a hundred years ago. Cf. Professor H. E. Egerton's\nremark:--\n\n\"The British Colonial Empire of to-day is not the Empire which was the\noutcome of seventeenth-century methods. So far as the colonists\nthemselves were concerned, English colonisation (in the seventeenth and\neighteenth centuries) was a complete success, but from the point of view\nof the mother country it was a failure, and the rock on which it\nfoundered was the same rock which lost America to Spain and caused\nCanada to acquiesce in separation from France.\"]\n\n[Footnote 80: I am ashamed to say that when I wrote these chapters I had\nnot read Mr. H. N. Brailsford's _War of Steel and Gold_. But Mr.\nBrailsford's brilliant examination of the connection between War and\nFinance is quite consistent with my supplementary theory of War and\nTrade. \"Trade supplies no explanation of Imperialism,\" says Mr.\nBrailsford (p. 75). It does, in so far as Traders support Imperialism\nbecause they think it is good for Trade: while financiers, as Mr.\nBrailsford shows, support Imperialism because they know it is good for\ninvestments.]\n\n[Footnote 81: \"What is vital to any real Democracy in a densely-peopled,\neconomically-complicated modern State, is that the Government should not\nbe one. The very concentration of authority which is essential in war\nis, in peace, fatally destructive not of freedom alone, but also of that\nmaximum individual development which is the very end and purpose for\nwhich society exists.\"--Sidney Webb, _Towards Social Democracy?_,\n1916.]\n\nmilitarism acquire strength with each fresh licence until the community\nas a whole is quite unable to control its own baser passions--a\ncondition which more than any other merits the name of servitude.[83]\nImperialism is a form of political corruption in which a nation is\nconsoled for its own slavery by the pride of enslaving its neighbours.\nThe attainment of permanent peace connotes the abandonment of\nImperialism.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 82: \"Les Anglais veulent etre conquerants; donc ils ne\ntarderont pas d'etre esclaves.\"--_Political Writings_, C. E. Vaughan, I,\n373.]\n\n\nSec. 6\n\nPossible Objects of War\n\nIf the nations are prepared to abandon the claims of Imperialism there\nwill be very little else left to fight about. An examination of the\ndocuments connected with any war of the last century shows that the\nobject of a belligerent in prolonging the agony is usually expressed in\nvague language that can be dissolved by a little analysis. Sometimes a\ngovernment will propose, in the interests of peace and good government,\nto crush the enemy's aggressiveness by a purely defensive aggression, an\nexcuse for bloodshed which only the most fanatical pacifist could\nconfuse with Mr. Asquith's blunt watchword of \"crushing German\nmilitarism.\" The logical fallacy of such an excuse which is almost\ninvariably pleaded by powerful belligerents,[84] a fallacy of which no\none could wish to accuse Mr. Asquith's solid intellect, lies (quite\napart from any question of the priority of aggression) in the fact that\nany attempt to crush by force the Will to Conquer inevitably breeds\nmore militarism. The tag about taking a lesson from the enemy, _fas est\net ab hoste doceri_, is only one half of the unhappy truth that the\nfighter is fatally bound to acquire his enemy's worst characteristics.\nThe object undertaken apparently in the interests of democracy can only\nbe accomplished by the wholesale suppression of democratic rights, and\ninvolves an organised manufacture of imperialistic emotion which ends by\ndelegating the authority of the State to a reactionary triumvirate of\nbureaucracy, jingoism and vulgarity (or Tory, Landowner and Journalist).\nThe guarantees of democracy, the rights of free thought and free speech,\nevery sort of civil liberty and every defence against the servile state,\nwill all have to be suppressed in the interests of the nation at war. It\nis the old story of the conversion of Thais by Paphnutius: the preacher\nsnatches lovely Thais from the burning, but himself is damned--\"si\nhideux qu'en passant la main sur son visage, il sentit sa laideur.\" A is\nwhite and finds it necessary to whitewash B, who is black: after several\nyears of hopeless grey, A finds that he has indeed put some very\nsatisfactory daubs of whitewash all over B, but that his own coat has\nbeen blackened in the course of the struggle. It is as if a gardener,\nhaving heard of the cannibalistic habit of earwigs, proposed to\nexterminate the earwig in his rose-garden by importing a special army of\nfive million earwigs collected at great expense from the surrounding\ncountry.\n\nOther belligerent governments will raise the plea of checking the spread\nof a hostile and dangerous culture; a plausible because apparently\nphilosophical justification of war as the only means of extirpating a\nheresy that might pervert the whole future of European civilisation.\nUnfortunately such a moral effect, such a \"conversion by shock,\" could\nonly be accomplished by a very sudden, complete and shattering victory;\nand it is now beginning to be recognised that spectacular triumphs are\nnot to be expected in modern warfare. But even if it were as possible by\nviolence as it might conceivably be desirable to extirpate or even to\nlimit the propagation of a particular form of mental culture, the\nachievement would certainly not be worth the cost to the unhappy\nsurvivors and their posterity. It would indeed be a crime against\nhumanity to eliminate the better part of the younger generation, the\nflower of human brains, in the monstrous pedantry of attempting to\ncorrect an intellectual error. For the risks of modern warfare are not\nordinary. It is not sufficiently realised that in six months of\noffensive tactics under modern conditions no man in the front line has\nmore than one chance in a million of escaping death or mutilation.\n\nThere may remain the plea that a prolonged campaign is necessary in\norder by exhaustion to compel the enemy to evacuate some territory that\nhe may have wrongfully occupied. The inevitable answer to such a plea\nwould be that if a war had arrived at a stage in which there was a clear\npossibility of coercing the enemy by a process of exhaustion, that\npossibility, if it were well-founded, would certainly not have escaped\nthe intelligence of the enemy, who would consequently be prepared to\nsave his face by coming to terms. The evacuation of the occupied\nterritory, or whatever it is that was to be achieved by the coercive\nexhaustion of another year or two of battle, might then be obtained by\nnegotiation at once, and at the cost of a certain amount of paper and\nink, instead of being forced on a revengeful and embittered opponent by\nthe expensive process of killing young men, a process which has the\ndisadvantage of working both ways.\n\nThe conclusion of these general considerations seems to be that all the\narguments that are likely to be put forward in the course of a war in\norder to excuse and ensure its continuation, are only excuses to gain\ntime, put forward in hope that the chances of a further campaign may\nenable the government concerned to retrieve some apparent advantage out\nof the disastrous muddle through which they drifted into the first\ndeclaration of war. Having drawn the sword in a moment of embarrassment,\nthey have now jolly well got to pretend that it was the right thing to\ndo, and are not going to sheathe it till they see a chance of proving\nthat they are glad they drew it. In short, there comes a point in all\nmodern wars in which the belligerents are fighting for nothing at all,\nexcept for a more or less advantageous position from which to discuss a\nway to stop fighting.[85]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 83: Spinoza, _Ethica_, IV, _praefat. ad init._ Humanam\nimpotentiam in moderandis et coercendis affectibus servitutem voco.]\n\n[Footnote 84: See above, Sec. 2, on \"defensive\" war, and compare a passage\nfrom Mr. C. Grant Robertson's letter in _The Times_ of August 15,\n1916:--\n\n\"Bismarck repeatedly and explicitly in the Reichstag justified the wars\nof 1864, 1866, and 1870 as 'defensive'--i.e. as not 'willed' by Prussia.\nOn the contrary, they were wars 'forced' on a peace-loving State denied\nits 'rights' by Denmark, Austria, and France. The argument, briefly, on\nBismarckian principles is this. Prussia's policy is an\n'_Interessenpolitik_'--a policy of 'interests.' An 'interest' confers a\n'right.' The satisfaction of 'national interest' is therefore the\nachievement of 'national rights.' If these 'rights' can be achieved by a\ncompromise--i.e. by the complete surrender of Prussia's opponents to the\ndemands based on these 'rights'--that is a proof of her peace-loving\nnature. But if her opponents refuse, then the war by which the 'rights'\nare secured is a war 'forced' on Prussia. She has not 'willed' it. It is\na 'defensive' war to prevent the robbery of her 'rights' by others;\nBismarck, not without difficulty, converted his Sovereign to this\nargument. In each case--1864, 1866, 1870--William I was ultimately\nconvinced that Denmark, Austria, and France were resisting the 'rights'\nof Prussia, and that war to secure them was 'defensive,' 'forced' on the\nKing, and just. The successful issues confirmed William's conscience and\nproved that Bismarckian principles had the Divine sanction.\"]\n\n[Footnote 85: This attitude is well illustrated by the history of the\nCrimean War. In January, 1855, \"peace seemed impossible until some of\nthe disgrace was wiped away, and the pacificists, Cobden and Bright,\nwere burned in effigy.... The prolongation of the war called out no\nprotest from the public.\" Yet \"the popular war produced an unpopular\npeace.\" When after another year of fighting our French allies finally\ninsisted on peace, \"'there was no indication,' said a Frenchman, 'as to\nwhich was the victor and which the vanquished.' Reviews and\nilluminations could not obscure the truth; Britain had sacrificed lives\nand treasure and obtained little in return.\"--Alice Green's Epilogue to\nJ. R. Green's _Short History of the English People_.]\n\n\nSec. 7\n\nPhysical Force in a Moral World\n\nThe explanation of all this seems to lie in the simple fact that it is\nfor ever impossible to solve questions of moral or political principle\nby the expenditure of physical force. Anyone at all conversant with\nphilosophical thought, if I may adopt a simile used by Mr. H. G. Wells,\n\"would as soon think of trying to kill the square root of 2 with a rook\nrifle.\" Physical violence can only solve purely physical problems. But\nas man no longer exists, if he ever did exist, in the completely\nunsocial \"state of nature,\"[86] the relations of one individual with\nanother are no longer purely physical: their position as members of one\nsociety has given them a moral relation, questions affecting which can\nonly be settled by reference to the judgment of the society as a whole.\nWithin the limits of the State this fact is already clearly recognised\nby the common voice of public opinion. If Smith quarrels with his\nneighbour Robinson, because Smith's old English sheep-dog is suspected\nof having scratched up Robinson's lawn, and Smith says the poor dog\nwould never do such a thing, and anyhow Robinson had no business to\nleave his back gate open, while Robinson declares that that brute is\nbecoming a damned nuisance, and so provokes Smith to express a hope that\nnow perhaps that grass of Robinson's won't want so much godless mowing\non Sunday morning: if two neighbours, in short, have a difference of\nopinion they both know perfectly well that the rights of the argument\ncan never be decided by a free fight in the middle of the road, even if\none of them happens to be a heavy-weight champion. Moreover, if they do\ncome to blows it is perfectly certain that the opinion of the whole road\nwill be against them, and that the Law, to which they might have\nappealed in the first instance, will intervene as the embodiment of that\nopinion. The street fight is clearly recognised as not only futile but\nimmoral; it not only settles no questions of principle but it\nconstitutes a breach of the moral relation between two members of one\ncommunity; it is become merely a rather sordid exhibition of irrelevant\nphysical facts. The average citizen of England or Germany would never\nthink of encouraging a fight between two sides of a street: why does he\nnot recognise with equal directness the futility and immorality of a\nfight between two sides of a continent?[87] It is only because public\nopinion has not yet effectively realised that the moral sphere includes\nnot only the citizens of one city and the cities of one nation, but the\nnations of a continent and the continents of the world. But it is a fact\nthat the moral sphere does include the whole of humanity, who are\ncolleagues in the task of civilisation, inspired by the\ntwentieth-century corollary of gloomy nineteenth-century religious\nagnosticism, the cheerful corollary that it is Man's duty rather than\nGod's to improve the habitable earth. The truth of this fact is already\nrecognised by the better thought of all the nations concerned, and there\nis no reason why it should be withheld any longer from the people who\nsuffer most by its suppression. As soon as public opinion is allowed to\ngrasp this truth--and it is only too willing to clutch at any\ngeneralisation that is emotionally encouraged by its governors--there\nneed be no difficulty at all in embodying that opinion in some form of\ninternational government: for, as Rousseau might have said, where\nthere's a General Will, there's a way. As a matter of fact the way has\nalready been admirably mapped by several parties of surveyors.[88]\n\nOn the constitution of an International Authority, even on the general\naspiration of Europe towards some form of supernational judicature, war\nwill cease to have any more attraction or justification than the street\nbrawl. For war is actually in the community of nations what the street\nfight is between individual citizens. War is futile, because it can\nsettle no questions of principle; it is immoral, because it is an\noffence against the membership of a moral community. There is abundant\nevidence in Blue Books and in the overt acts of Germany that war\nreleases and encourages the elementary brutality of the individual which\nis normally inhibited by the consciousness of social relations. I have\ntried to show in a former chapter that war serves the lowest interests\nof a parasitic commercial class at the expense of the better part of the\ncommunity. War fosters at the same time the basest elements in the\nindividual, and the basest individuals in the community. War is a crime\nagainst the peace of the people.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 86: _Supra_, I, Sec. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 87: Mr. Gilbert Cannan has noted somewhere that \"a 'straight'\nfight between Great Britain and Germany will be like a fight between two\ndrunken women in a slum.\"]\n\n[Footnote 88: See, for example, the quite definite and complete report\non _International Government_, published by the Fabian Society (1916):\nand compare Mr. J. A. Hobson's book _Towards International Government_,\nand Mr. H. G. Wells' _The World Set Free_.]\n\n\nSec. 8\n\nImperialism and Capitalism through War and Trade the Enemies: Socialism\nto the Rescue\n\nIt is the most remarkable fact in political bibliography that all the\nUtopias worth mentioning have been written by Socialists. The fact is\nnot surprising to anyone who has considered that the Socialists are the\nonly political party in the State who ever attempt to look more than a\ndozen years ahead. The ordinary politician steers the ship by keeping a\nlook-out for rocks and squalls, and does not trouble to make for any\ndistant landmark. Only the Socialist looks ahead to a harbour attainable\nperhaps in a hundred years, from which a happier voyage may be begun.\nOnly the Socialist seems to realise that in the world conceived, as\nmodern thought must conceive it, as a continuous process, Government\nrather than Trade, Science and Art rather than Industry are the chief\nactivities of the citizen. Government is nothing less than the\norganisation of the State to take its place among the other States of\nthe world. It includes of course education, being itself a form of\neducation: for the State must be educated to fulfil its duty to other\nStates, just as the citizen must be (and more or less is) educated in\nduty towards his neighbour. The first task of education is naturally to\neliminate violence, to inhibit, by inducing in the young citizen the\nrecognition of mutual rights, those acts of ferocity by which primitive\nman instinctively expresses his solipsistic passions.\n\nBut where, it may well be asked, is the authority which is to begin the\nneglected education of the nations of Europe? Where is what Mr. Boon (or\nMr. Bliss) would call \"the Mind of the Race\"? At present the only body\nof doctrine with any conception of the nature of government for the\ncollective benefit of humanity is International Socialism. It is the\nInternational Socialists who must lead the attack on War, if only\nbecause the only instigators of war themselves form an international\nbody in so far as the only occasions for war are contrived by the\nImperialists and Capitalists who are to be found in every nation. To\nSocialism belongs the duty of educating Europe against Imperialism, as\nit has begun to educate the nation against Capitalism; for Imperialism\nis only an allotropic form of Capitalism, manifesting itself in the\nexploitation of fellow-nations instead of in the exploitation of\nfellow-citizens. The first step in that education must be the fight not\nonly against \"private\" or profiteering Trade, but against \"private\" or\nprofiteering War: and \"private war\" is every war that is not authorised\nby an International Authority and waged by an International army.\n\nI seem to have heard it said before that there is only one way to break\nthe chains that bind us: and that Amalgamation is the mother of Liberty.\nThe need for the education of Europe is a call to the Trade Unionists\nand Fabians and Collectivists and Guildsmen of every Nation:\n\n       SOCIALISTS OF THE WORLD\n                UNITE.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nAPPENDIX TO CHAPTER III\n\n\n\n\nSOME TYPICAL WAR PROFITS\n\n\nI. _The Manchester Guardian_, January 3, 1916:\n\nBRITISH INDUSTRY IN WAR\n\nThe first full calendar year of war has been a period of unparalleled\nindustrial activity and, generally speaking, prosperity in this country.\nHeavy losses and bad times have been encountered in a few important\nindustries, but these are balanced by unprecedented profits made by a\nlarge variety of industries, whether directly or indirectly affected by\nthe war. One frequently finds that the neutral visitor carries away with\nhim an impression of industrial England as one great living arsenal.\nThat is not surprising, as since July last the Munitions Ministry has\nerected (or improvised) and started a large number (it is not\npermissible to say how many) of State munitions works, and it has also\nmobilised the whole engineering resources of the nation to such an\nextent that in the first week of December no fewer than 2026\nmanufacturing establishments had been declared \"controlled firms.\"\n\nBut it would be a mistake to suppose that, while war manufactures\nprospered, all other industry languished and decayed. To prove the\ncontrary and show that only here and there were there heavy losses, we\nmay quote some figures compiled by the _Economist_, which show that 720\nindustrial concerns publishing their reports during the first nine\nmonths of 1915, and having a capital of L531,678,701, made profits\namounting to L52,881,300, or under 2-1/4 millions less than in the\nprevious year (which in the case of almost all the reports was a year\nbefore the war).\n\nDissecting these figures, we find that not only iron, coal, steel, and\nshipping companies report enormous profits, but that increased earnings\nwere shown by breweries, gas, rubber, oil, and trust companies, and\nothers. The large exceptions which depressed the total profits were\ntextile companies (other than those engaged on war contracts), catering,\nand cement companies. Shipping leads the van of prosperity owing to\nphenomenal freight rates, while iron and steel and shipbuilding, as\ndirect and established purveyors of armaments, are close behind. As\nshowing the industrial tendency of the year, one may quote the remarks\nof a trust company chairman at a recent meeting. Of 150 home investments\npossessed by his company, he remarked that a hundred had since the war\nyielded the same as in the year before war, while thirty had paid less\nand twenty more.\n\nInto the circle of munition producers have been drawn cycle and motor,\nmachinery, electrical, and many other branches of manufacture. Of other\nindustries driven to fever heat by the war may be mentioned woollen and\nleather factories. Secondary effects of the war also produced a boom in\nseveral unexpected quarters. For instance, the high wages earned by war\nworkers, and too generously spent in a vast number of cases, led to a\nstrong demand for cheap furniture, pianos and many types of household\ngoods which in normal times are usually out of reach of the purse of\nmost wage-earners. But one trouble has beset all industries in common--a\nshortage of labour, which cannot but grow with every increase to the\nnumbers of men drafted from the ranks of productive industry into the\narmy or the munitions works. From all quarters comes the tale of orders,\nboth from home and from abroad, that cannot be accepted. In the case of\nforeign orders that have to be refused, the labour shortage has what one\nfears may be lasting consequences. For custom once diverted to America\nor elsewhere is not easily regained.\n\n\n2. _The Manchester Guardian_, March 3, 1916:\n\nMORE GREAT PROFITS\n\nHOLT LINE'S ENORMOUS SURPLUS\n\nThe China Mutual Steam Navigation Company (Holt Line) has had a greater\nyear than ever. It has been supposed that regular liners were getting\nlittle benefit from the boom in freights, but a profit of L591,005, as\nagainst about L294,000 in 1914 and L386,418 in 1913, can only be\nexplained by a very large participation in special war-time gains. The\ndividend and bonus on the ordinary shares make 106 per cent for the\nfourth year in succession, and a still larger sum is being kept in hand,\nL200,000 being put to the reserve, as against L50,000 for 1914 and\nL100,000 for each of two years before that, and the balance forward is\nraised from L81,014 to L201,367. Most of the Company's capital, however,\nonly bears 6 per cent interest. The ordinary shares (which we believe\nare held privately) only amount to a little over L83,000.\n\n\n3. _Pall Mall Gazette_, September 24, 1915:\n\nWAR PROFITS\n\nThe other taxes are accepted by the public and traders alike as\ninevitable, but special interest is being taken in the excess war\nprofits tax. That Mr. McKenna is likely to find his estimate of\nL30,000,000 largely exceeded is admitted. The _Daily Chronicle_\npublishes a table in which the City Editor compares the last profits\nannounced by some of our greatest undertakings, covering a\nconsiderable portion of the war period in most and some portion of it in\nall cases, with the average of the previous three years. It will be seen\nthat in every instance the war has brought greatly increased prosperity.\n\n                                      Last     Average\n                                      Profit.  Previous  Increase.\n                                               3 years.\n                                         L         L         L\n\n  ARMSTRONG WHITWORTH                 802,000   624,000   178,000\n  (Engineering, Shipb., etc.)\n\n  WM. BEARDMORE                       219,000   185,000    34,000\n  (Engineering, Shipb., etc.)\n\n  JOHN BROWN                          586,000   347,000   239,000\n  (Engineers, Shipbuilders, etc.)\n\n  BEYER PEACOCK                        83,000    35,000    48,000\n  (Locomotive Builders)\n\n  BRUNNER MOND                        824,000   770,000    54,000\n  (Alkali Manufacturers)\n\n  CAMMELL, LAIRD                      238,000   147,000    91,000\n  (Iron, Steel, and Shipb.)\n\n  HAWTHORN LESLIE                     202,000   102,000   100,000\n  (Sh'b. & Marine Engin'ring)\n\n  KYNOCH'S                            153,000   114,000    39,000\n  (Explosives)\n\n  LAMBERT BROS.                       142,000    84,000    58,000\n  (Coal Exporters, etc.)\n\n  POWELL DUFFRYN                      422,000   279,000   143,000\n  (Collieries)\n\n  SAMUEL FOX                           66,000    39,000    27,000\n  (Engineers)\n\n  SPILLERS & BAKERS                   367,000   140,000   227,000\n  (Millers)\n\n  VICKERS, LTD.                     1,019,000   809,000   210,000\n  (Eng. and Shipbuilding)\n\nThis table indicates that the Chancellor may expect to receive far more\nthan the sum he estimated from the war profits tax.\n\n\n4. _The Manchester Guardian_, Feb. 28, 1916:\n\nCOAL PROFITS NEARLY DOUBLED\n\nThe tale of colliery war profits is continued by the report of North's\nNavigation Collieries (Glamorganshire). The output for 1915 was actually\nless by 87,810 tons (1,141,900 tons against 1,229,710), but the profit\nwas nearly doubled--L130,071 against L65,578. With the L10,496 brought\ninto the account the directors had their biggest total in recent years\navailable for distribution. The ordinary shareholders get 10 per cent\nand a bonus of 2-1/2 per cent, which is the best payment since the 15\nper cent paid for 1907. Advantage is taken of a prosperous year to place\nL35,000 to the reserve fund, which has been rather overlooked recently,\nonly one allocation of L20,000 having been made in four years. It now\nstands at L155,000, against L650,000 of share capital. For depreciation,\nwith regard to which item substantial provision is made each year,\nL15,000 is written off. This leaves L10,567 to be carried forward. The\nCompany has the reputation of being well managed, and its coal\nproperties are regarded as being very valuable. The recently opened St.\nJohn's pits are being developed satisfactorily, it appears, a further\nincrease in output being shown.\n\nDespite a decrease in output of nearly 400,000 tons, the Powell Duffryn\nSteam Coal Company is enabled to show a profit for 1915 of L438,799, as\ncompared with L422,204 for 1914 and L364,421 for 1913. The usual 20 per\ncent is distributed on the ordinary shares, free of income tax, and last\nyear's allocation of L50,000 to the reserve fund is repeated. In\naddition, the reserve for income tax benefits to the extent of L50,052,\nand there remains L120,236 to carry forward. The decrease in output, it\nshould be noted, is due to the enlistment of the miners, and its\nrestoration to the normal and probable increase after the war should\nbalance the decline in profit that may be expected to attend the\ndecreased demand.\n\n\n5. The Times, May 19, 1916:\n\nSOAPMAKERS' \"RECORD\" PROFITS\n\nPresiding yesterday at the annual meeting of Joseph Watson and Sons\n(Limited), soapmakers, Leeds, Mr. Joseph Watson said that the company's\nprofits for the year amounted to L122,000, or L19,000 in excess of any\nprevious year's profits. Their turnover had largely increased because\nthey were now supplying soap to France, Belgium, Scandinavia, and a\nsmall amount to Spain and Italy. It was not a question to-day of getting\norders; it was a question of refusing them. They had at the present time\nthree months' orders on the books.\n\n\n6. _The New Witness_:\n\nTHE SCANDAL OF WAR PROFITS\n\nIt is a sinister and deplorable fact--one of the most ironical with\nwhich the continuance of the War has yet confronted us--that there has\ngrown up in Great Britain a number of firms and businesses to whom a\nsuccessful prosecution of the campaign would mean ruin, and who have an\nactual vested interest in the indecisive continuance of hostilities.\nThis is due entirely to the lack of grip and resolution which the\nGovernment have displayed in dealing with the ugly phenomenon of War\nProfits. We know, of course, what happens to those profits at present.\nHalf is taken by the State: half passes to the firms who are getting\n\"rich quick\" out of its necessities. In theory, it is an anomalous\narrangement, indefensible in logic, and opposed to every canon alike of\njustice and of taxation. In practice it works out in the way we have\nindicated: that certain privileged firms and individuals are amassing\nhuge fortunes out of the gravest crisis through which the nation has\npassed, and which will pinch us all before it is over.\n\nLet us give some examples of the mammoth profits that some of these\nconcerns are making. There is first of all the famous old English firm\nof Levinstein--Messrs. Levinstein of Manchester--to be considered. This\n\"all-British\" concern has not done badly out of the terrible situation\nthrough which we are slowly toiling. While mere vulgar English Tommies\nhave been dying in the trenches or have returned incapacitated to\nEngland--to find that their country cannot afford them a\npension--Levinsteins have been pocketing several thousands of that\ncountry's cash. Levinsteins' are dye-makers, and in 1914-15 they made a\nprofit of L80,000 _on a capital of_ L90,000: a profit large enough to\nmake the mouth of the deceased usurer Kirkwood dry with envy. But, while\nour legislature passed laws to restrain the usurer in his exactions, the\n\"war profiteer\" has no restriction placed on him. His workmen can, in\ncertain cases, be fined or sent to prison if they absent themselves from\nwork, and hundreds have been proceeded against under the Defence of the\nRealm Act. But the profiteer himself is immune! It is childish to say\nthat the State can recover half of the profit he has wrung from the\ncountry's necessity. What right has he to the other half? In the case of\nLevinstein, this L80,000 profit enables the company to pay 14-1/2\nyears' preference dividend, to distribute a dividend of 30 per cent on\nits ordinary shares, and to write off L21,000 for depreciation! It is\nmerely fatuous to pretend, or to endeavour to pretend, that the\nappropriation of half these profits squares matters between the\ncommunity and the British firm in question.\n\nAs with Levinstein, so with other firms. Messrs. Cammell, Laird & Co.\naveraged profits of L146,000 for the three years before the war. Since\nlast year those profits have risen to L237,000. Those profits, of\ncourse, are subject to war profits taxation. But most manifestly that\ntaxation is utterly inadequate. So it is in the case of Messrs. W.\nBeardmore, whose profits rose from L184,000 (three years' pre-war\naverage) to L219,000; of the British Westinghouse Co., which rose from\nL56,000 to L151,000; and of Beyer Peacock's, which increased from\nL57,000 to L109,000.\n\nIn all these cases the deduction of 50 per cent by the Government is\nentirely inadequate and utterly misleading. It is at once an admission\nthat the firm in question has no right to amass huge profits out of the\nwelter and tragedy of the European War, and that the State is content to\nstultify itself by surrendering the other half.\n\nMany of these profits have been made by covering rises in raw material\nfar in excess of the actual increases. Many have been wrung from the\npoor and the needy, who are now being enjoined by the Government to eat\nless meat. Messrs. Spillers & Baker, of South Wales, increased their\nprofits from an average of L140,000 (three years' pre-war average) to\nL367,000 in 1914-15. We do not blame them. The rise in price was beyond\ntheir control. They could hardly help benefiting. But it is mere madness\nfor the Government to leave them in possession of these vast accretions\nof wealth. Firms that paid 8 per cent before the war, now paying 22-1/2\nper cent (such as Messrs. Richard Dickeson & Co., the Army contractors)\nare able to pocket tens of thousands that ought to go to strengthen the\nresources of the nation. Others, like the Mercantile Steamship Co.,\nincrease their dividend from 20 per cent to 35 per cent; and some are\nable to pay dividends actually larger than the capital of the company\nitself!\n\nIt is ludicrous for the Government to allow this condition of affairs to\ncontinue. Their course is quite clear. They should limit profits to the\naverage of three years before the war, and add at the most 5 per cent.\nAnything short of this is a betrayal of the national interests to\nprivate firms.\n\n\n7. _The New Statesman_, March 25, 1916:\n\nAn innocent person might think that when a manufacturing company is\nfaced with an enormous rise in the cost of the principal commodity it\nconsumes, its profits would be diminished. Some law must be in operation\nwhich has escaped the attention of economists, for so far from this\nbeing the case, what appears to happen is that the profits of\nmanufacturers rise in a greater degree than the price of the raw\nmaterial. Thus, so far from being hit by the enormous rise in the price\nof flour, Peek, Frean & Co., the well-known biscuit manufacturers, made\na net profit of L107,478 last year, as compared with L99,578 in 1914,\nand L98,607 in 1913. After paying the usual 5 per cent on the L300,000\nof preference shares no less than 25 per cent is paid on the L230,000 of\nordinary share capital, which has been issued. This company raised its\nmoney very cheaply from the public, which paid 102 per cent for its 4\nper cent debenture stock and par for the 5 per cent preference shares.\nThe investing public does not benefit by the big dividend on the\nordinary shares. These were never offered to the public, but are\nprivately held.\n\nAnother shipping company, sister to the Court Line, mentioned in these\nnotes last week, has issued its report. This is the Cressington\nSteamship Company, which owns two modern tramp steamers of slightly over\n7,000 tons each. The company was very fortunate in that one of these\nvessels was delivered in February, 1915, it having been contracted for\nat pre-war prices. The profits for the year amounted to L50,015, as\ncompared with L6,861 in 1914 (when only one vessel was trading). The\ndividend for the year is 15 per cent, L7,072 is allocated to\ndepreciation, L22,000 for special war profits and income-tax, whilst\nabout L3,000 is being carried forward. The financial position of the\ncompany is such that if its ships were sold at L2 15s. per ton,\nshareholders would receive the return of their capital in full. On\npresent prices, however, they would probably fetch over L15 per ton. The\nshares are now quoted at 28s.\n\nThe Bengal Iron and Steel Company, whose report has also been issued\nduring the week, has had an interesting career; it works large iron ore\nand coalmining areas in Bengal. At first the company did well, but then\nit went in for an unfortunate steel venture and fell into arrears with\nits preference dividend. This was overcome, and during the past few\nyears the company has done well, particularly from its coal business.\nThe report for the year ended September 30th, 1915, shows a working\nprofit of L144,913, as compared with L79,200 during the previous year.\nThis considerable improvement enables the company, after writing off\nvarious old items, to place to a general reserve L20,000, and to declare\na dividend payable quarterly of 24 per cent on the L224,850 of ordinary\nshares, which compares with 12 per cent a year ago. By way of a change,\nthe report states that the trading results would have been even better\nhad war conditions not prevailed.\n\n  EMIL DAVIES.\n\n\n8. _The New Statesman_, May 27, 1916:\n\nMarkets have displayed unwonted cheerfulness during the past week, and\nall sorts of peace rumours are in circulation. It is more than likely,\nhowever, that it is the firmness of the market which is responsible for\nthe rumours, and not _vice versa_. There is a steady stream of orders\nfrom the Midlands and the North, where people are making money, and\nthese have the effect of putting up prices in several of the markets.\nThe Brazilian Funding Loan, which was recommended here on the 29th April\nat 74, has been noticeably firm, and is now 77-1/4. It still appears to\nbe the cheapest Government Loan. Brazilian securities are attracting\nmore attention, and Brazil Traction Common, which a year ago was below\n50, now stands at 64. There has been a large business in Castner Kellner\non the working agreement between that chemical company and Brunner, Mond\n& Co., the shares having jumped four or five shillings to their present\nprice of 69s. 6d. Precisely a year ago they were recommended in these\nnotes at 66s. 10-1/2d. Shipping shares have been exceptionally firm;\nCourt Lines have risen another few shillings to 34s., the large business\nin them being probably due to the fact that they are one of the few\nshipping shares which can be obtained. Rubber shares are equally firm.\nNobel's Explosive Company has just issued its report for last year,\nshowing a profit of L529,738 _after_ providing for excess profits duty.\nThe dividend is 15 per cent, free of income-tax, or 5 per cent more than\nlast year. This increase in the dividend came as a surprise to the\nmarket, and the price of the shares (which are a favourite investment in\nGlasgow) jumped from 31s. to 38s. 3d.\n\nThe profits of the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company (the White Star\nLine) for last year have attracted a good deal of attention. They were\nstated as being L1,968,285, as compared with L887,548 in 1914 and\nL1,121,268 in 1913, which was the Company's record year; but the figure\ngiven for 1915 does not indicate the full profit, for it is arrived at\n\"after providing for excess profits taxation and contingent\nliabilities.\" Replying to a question asked in the House of Commons by\nMr. W. C. Anderson, Captain Pretyman stated that the Company informed\nhim that the profit mentioned was before deduction of debenture interest\nand depreciation. Captain Pretyman added that the sum divided as\ndividend was L487,500, the same amount as in the year 1913 before the\nwar. Where people are protesting against large war profits it may, at\nfirst sight, appear an adequate answer to point out that a Company is\nnot paying out more in dividends than it did in the year preceding the\nwar. As a statement of fact it is perfectly correct, but it has no\nbearing upon the amount of profit that has been made, as the following\ncalculation will show. We now know that the 1915 profit shown in the\naccounts is _after_ allowing for excess profits taxation, deferred\nrepairs, contingent liabilities, debenture interest and depreciation.\nSince 1913 the Company has increased its debenture issue, and last year\nhad to pay in debenture interest L109,536, as compared with L65,211 in\n1914. How much has been placed on one side for depreciation before\nshowing the profits can only be known to very few people, but the amount\nthe Company must have put on one side for excess profits taxation must\nbe at least half a million, and possibly a great deal more. The actual\nprofits for last year were therefore probably in the neighbourhood of\nthree millions, if not more. As indicated above, out of the L1,968,285\nshown as profit, only L487,500 is paid out in dividends, the remainder\ngoing to various reserves. The dividend works out at 65 per cent, but\nall goes to the International Mercantile Marine Company, the\nmuch-talked-of American shipping trust associated with the name of the\nlate J. Pierpont Morgan, which holds all the Ordinary Shares. The trust\nwas in a bankrupt condition prior to the war, but the present state of\naffairs is radically altering its position. It must be annoying to the\nAmerican holders that a large slice of the profits of an American-owned\nconcern has to go to the British Government in the shape of war\ntaxation.\n\n\n9. _The New Statesman_, June 24, 1916:\n\nAnother firm which has apparently benefited by the war is Ruston,\nProctor & Co., the well-known Lincoln manufacturers of agricultural\nimplements. A final dividend of 5-1/2 per cent is declared, plus a bonus\nof 2 per cent, making 10 per cent for the year, which still allows the\nCompany to place L45,000 to reserve and to carry over L16,300. This\ndividend is 3 per cent more than was paid last year, and is the highest\nin the twenty-six years' history of the Company. Shipping shares remain\nfirm, and it is almost impossible to purchase any of the best shares. As\nan illustration of the profits that are being made, the Nitrate\nProducers' Steamship Company's accounts for the year ended April 30th\nlast show a gross profit of L404,022, as compared with L151,905 and\nL135,986 in 1914 and 1913 respectively. The dividend is 25 per cent,\nfree of income tax, L100,000 is placed to reserve, L200,000 to a special\nfund for excess profits tax, income tax, etc., L30,000 is added to the\ninsurance fund, and the carry forward is increased by some L7000. The\nCompany owned a fleet of ten steamers, which has, however, been reduced\nto five by the sinking of one last September by an enemy submarine and\nby the sale of four vessels. A new vessel is under construction, and\nshould be ready for delivery in August. The capital of the Company\nconsists of L200,000 in Ordinary Shares and L200,000 in 5 per cent\nCumulative Preference Shares.\n\n\n10. _The New Witness_, June 15, 1916:\n\nWAR PROFITS AND THE GOVERNMENT\n\nIt is essential that a determined effort should be made to rouse the\nnation to a sense of the gross and scandalous injustice of the huge\nprofits that are at present being \"earned\" by certain firms piling up\nwealth which is really amazing to contemplate. This is not mere empty\nrhetoric; the figures support the description up to the hilt. Let us\ntake the case of five well-known companies, all engaged in \"war work,\"\nand see to what account they have turned our soldiers' sacrifices:--\n\n  FIRMS.                          PROFITS.\n\n                          1913      1914      1915\n\n                            L         L         L\n\n  Cammell, Laird         171,700   235,500   301,500\n\n  Curtis & Harvey         48,100    77,800   143,800\n\n  Projectile              14,000    40,400   192,700\n\n  Webley & Scott           9,500    16,400    61,300\n\n  Thornycroft             13,000   107,640   267,333\n                                            (6 mos.)\n\nThese figures can only be described as staggering--staggering, that is,\nto anyone who cherishes a faint, lingering belief that \"equality of\nsacrifice\" is to be a reality and not merely a bitter jest. Look for a\nmoment at the tale that these profits show! The Projectile Company has\nmultiplied its 1913 profit _thirteen times over_! Five or six years ago\nits affairs were in so parlous a state that 19s. had to be written off\nas lost from each 20s. share. Now, as Mr. Charles Duguid reminds us, \"it\nis paying a first dividend of 50 per cent and is returning to the\nshareholders 3s. 6d. out of the 19s. they regarded as lost.\" The return\non the shares, according to the same financial authority, is 400 per\ncent!!!\n\nLook at the case of Thornycrofts. The profits for the first half of 1915\nare twenty times as big as the profit for the whole of 1913--an\nincrease, as Mr. Duguid reminds us, _of 3800 per cent upon the year_, a\nyear that will spell blank financial ruin, impoverishment and\ndestitution to the families of thousands and tens of thousands of our\nfighting men!\n\nThornycrofts are by no means peculiarly fortunate; Nobels, for instance,\nhave managed to earn quite a tidy little profit. Their net profit for\n1915 comes out, we learn, at over half a million sterling (L529,800),\nexclusive of L213,900 brought forward out of the large profit of the\npreceding year, and this makes the total amount available for\ndistribution as much as L743,700. Even after paying a dividend of 10 per\ncent and a bonus of 5 per cent, making 15 per cent, all free of income\ntax, the Company has still L424,700 unallocated. In its most prosperous\nyear, 1913-1914, the net profit of the Nobel Dynamite Trust did not\namount to more than L381,300. We have, we need hardly say, no feeling\nagainst Nobels or Thornycrofts or the Projectile Company. We only want\nfair play in this matter. If this aggregation of profits is not stopped\nthe wealth of England will be in the hands of men who will regard the\ntriumphant conclusion of the War as spelling ruin to themselves and who\nwill see in victory only the cessation of profits that in normal times\nthey have never dared to contemplate.\n\nThe remedy for this is simple. The Government have refused to the\nworkman the right to extort unearned increment out of the country in its\ndire necessity. The workman may not strike or cease work or even change\nemployment without the permission of the State. Assuredly the State has\nthe right to exact that obedience from him. But it is essential that it\nshould, and at no distant date, lay its restraining hands also upon the\nemployers who are earning these huge dividends, otherwise we shall have\nenacted in England the tragedy that we have seen in Ireland. We shall\nhave a Government without moral authority, a Government which will,\ntherefore, be perpetually embarrassed in the conduct of war.\n\n\n11. _The New Witness_, June 15, 1916:\n\nWILLIAM CORY & SON\n\nThis famous coal company has taken every advantage of the demand for\ncoal, and can show a record profit. After providing for excess profits,\nthe balance of profit is L453,136, or L237,808 more than last year. As I\nhave again and again pointed out, I do not think the Government should\nallow such huge profits to be made in war time. The coal trade is in a\nfew hands, and firms like Corys may be said to control it. The directors\ncontent themselves with raising the dividend 5 per cent to 15 per cent;\nbut they place L100,000 to reserves, making them L500,000; L30,000 goes\nto staff pensions and L25,000 to a war fund for employees. The carry\nforward is raised L30,740 to L88,969. The steamers, tugs and barges are\nnow to be formed as separate companies; and the French business is also\nto be transferred to a subsidiary. The balance-sheet shows creditors up\nL204,971, presumably to meet the excess profits liability. Debit\nbalances have increased L509,840, and now include Treasury bills. War\nloans have been increased L280,652, and the total assets are up\nL451,183, at L4,541,601, and have earned 10 per cent. When all creditors\nhave been paid the quick assets amount to L930,654, and amply protect\nthe debentures, L900,000 which are an admirable security. I do not\nsuppose the present Ministry will do anything to control the profits\nmade out of the War by those who run the coal trade; and, therefore, we\nmay expect that 1916-17 will be as good a year as that just ended. But I\nam not in agreement with a policy of _laissez-faire_ in war time unless\nthe policy is carried out stringently.\n\n\nHOLBROOKS\n\nApparently the sauce trade has not been seriously injured by the War,\nfor Holbrooks have increased their trading profit L4,694 to L35,170; but\nincome tax is higher, and L5,000 has been used as a special reserve for\ninvestments, so the available profit is only L23,046, as against L25,055\nin the previous year. The dividend remains at 20 per cent, but L3,072\nmore is carried forward than was brought in, and the Board say that the\nunsettled state of the world justifies them in doing this. I suspect\nthat they are building up a reserve for the purpose of attacking the\nYankee trade which for so many years has been in the hands of Lea &\nPerrins. The business is well managed by the two managing directors, who\nhave been in the firm since it was promoted. The alterations in the\nbalance-sheet are not of any moment. Quick assets total L151,557 when\nliabilities have been met, and the assets have earned 7-1/2 per cent on\ntheir book value--not a very splendid profit for a sauce.\n\n\nJAMES HINKS & SON\n\nThis famous firm of lamp makers should benefit largely by the complete\nabsence of German competition all over the world, and the eleven months\nshow the satisfactory profit of L13,595. The dividend for the previous\nthirteen months was only 6 per cent, but the report now issued declares\n10 per cent and a bonus of 1s. 6d., or 17-1/2 per cent--a record\ndistribution. Also L2,250 is placed to reserve and the carry forward is\nraised from L3,603 to L6,399. As long as the War lasts we may expect\nthis remarkable prosperity to continue. The reserves are now in excess\nof the capital. The company has earned 7-1/2 per cent on the book value\nof its assets, which, in spite of goodwill and patents having been\nwritten off, looks as though they were fully valued at L179,765. The\nshares are a fair industrial speculation.\n\n\n12. _The Manchester Guardian_, June 19, 1916:\n\nWhile everybody knows that the immense disbursements on the War have led\nto a greater demand for labour than it is possible to meet at present\nand that employers have done well, in spite of their difficulties, it is\nperhaps not generally known how greatly the profits of nearly all the\npublic companies have increased during the last year. They have had to\npay higher wages in many cases, though not in all, their materials have\nbeen much more costly, and their foreign trade has been hampered by\nrestrictions, in furtherance of the policy of preventing the enemy from\ngetting goods which he requires and which it is in our power to control.\nMany, however, have done a large business for Allied Governments as well\nas our own, especially in army equipment, and the demand for coal has\nbeen greater than our power of supplying it. All our production has\ncommanded high prices, and profit margins have in most cases been very\nlarge. It is a way that chairmen of companies have to take big profits\nas being in the natural order of things, and dwell mostly on the\ndifficulties which have prevented them from showing even better results.\nIf this has obscured the real state of affairs it is desirable that the\nother side of the picture should be clearly presented, for it is\nimpossible to understand the economic side of the War without a thorough\ncomprehension of its industrial effects.\n\nWe give below a tabular statement of profits which have been declared\nthis year, with the figures for two preceding years added so as to show\ntheir true significance. Some are gross and others net profits, but in\nthis we have simply followed the methods adopted by the directors in\ntheir reports, that being in practice the only way of showing how the\ncomparison stands. In some cases the capital has been increased during\nthe three years, but the extent to which that has occurred does not\naffect the tables if they are regarded comprehensively. Some did very\nbadly in the first few months of the war, and the profits they declared\nin 1915 look very small in comparison with those in the first column of\nthe tables. In those cases the third column will act as a corrective,\nfor in the main it shows the companies' normal earnings. It will be\nnoticed that some of these were very small. Here and there the company\nwas in the development stage, but as a rule it may be taken that the\nconcern was not a very profitable one in peace times. Possibly it was\nover-capitalised, or over-weighted with debentures, or its plant was out\nof date, or it could not get sufficient business to make full use of its\nproductive capacity. We shall not attempt the invidious task of singling\nout which come in these categories, but we call attention to the cases\nin which small pre-war profits have been converted into large ones since\nbecause they are really the most instructive of the whole series.\n\nFor very large increases upon profits which were already good the most\nnotable are the shipping companies. Our list is typical rather than\nexhaustive. Some of the small concerns, with only one ship, or up to\nhalf a dozen, have done better relatively than several of the big lines,\nas they were more at liberty to take advantage of the big freight-rates\nwhich were going. We have not set these out, however, because it does\nnot appear to be necessary. The dividends in virtually all cases have\nbeen substantial, and in some cases very large indeed. It would be\nuseless, however, to show these in tables, as some of the leading\ncompanies use reserves greatly exceeding their nominal capital, and\nquite a number have devoted a larger proportion of their profits to\nstrengthening their position than to the payment of dividends. In the\ncase of the Moor line we are unable to give the amount of the profit\nreported last year, as the balance-sheets are not issued publicly,\nalthough we have been favoured with them occasionally.\n\nCoal, iron, engineering companies and shipbuilding companies are\nbracketed together because so many of them are concerned in at least two\nof those fields of industry. As our table shows, they have had a great\nrevival, many having been used by the Government, while all have felt\nthe effect of the great demand for munitions. The miscellaneous list\noffers an interesting field of study, and the rubber and tea companies'\nresults are in some respects more striking still. We have only given a\nselection of these, but they suffice to show that rubber and tea have\nbeen very profitable since the War began. An appeal was made some time\nago with a view to the \"young\" rubber companies being relieved of the\nexcess profits tax, but our list shows how unnecessary it was to make\nany special concession to the industry they represent. In the last two\nmonths a great many of the companies have indicated that they were\nsetting some thousands of pounds aside for the tax.\n\nAmong the other concerns which have announced their appropriations to\nmeet the excess profits tax the most notable one that we recall is the\nBritish Oil and Cake Mills Company, which expected to have to pay\nL225,000. The Nitrate Producers' Steamship Company is putting L200,000\nto a reserve for the excess profits duty and income tax. Most of the big\ncompanies have provided for the tax before striking the profit balance,\nand as this is strictly correct it would hardly be fair to say that they\nhave concealed part of their profits. The figures would have been more\nstriking, however, if the gross sums had been given. As we read the\nWhite Star line's figures they indicate that the company has had to pay\nmuch more than the British Oil and Cake Mills Company, but the Cunard\nline has probably had to pay much less.\n\nThe amount payable in any given case is the excess over the pre-war\nstandard, which is fixed by taking the best two of the three immediately\npreceding years. Speaking generally, the companies do not appear to have\nhurried in their payment of the tax. For the year ended March last the\ntotal yield was estimated at L6,000,000, but the actual sum received was\nonly L140,000, and the L6,000,000 has not been got yet, the yield from\nApril 1 to June 10 being only L3,556,000. A sharp increase is bound to\ncome, however, in the course of the financial year. The Chancellor of\nthe Exchequer expects to get L86,000,000 in excess profits tax and\nmunitions levies by the end of March next, and he cannot possibly have\nmade so enormous a mistake as the receipts to date would suggest if we\ndid not know that thousands of firms have still to pay very considerable\nsums.\n\nIn the tables appended the years at the tops of columns are those in\nwhich the profits mentioned were announced. A large proportion of the\nresults shown in the 1916 columns are for the year ended December last.\nSome, however, are for years which have ended since then, while a few,\nrelating to companies which carry on business abroad, are for years\nwhich began soon after the outbreak of the War:--\n\n  SHIPPING\n\n                              1916        1915        1914\n\n                                L           L           L\n\n  British and African         94,388      64,464      41,357\n  Booth Line                 328,127     225,267     154,828\n  China Mutual               591,005     286,725     381,729\n  Court                      137,446      25,034      23,890\n  Cunard                   1,579,170   1,286,948   1,187,831\n  Cairn                      152,152      85,988     102,318\n  Elder, Dempster            349,444     326,122     307,605\n  Eagle Oil Transport        325,928     302,897      92,866\n  Elder                       66,266      55,305      38,975\n  Field                       71,393      11,881        --\n  France, Fenwick            179,100      64,900      76,800\n  Gulf                       188,093      39,436      65,014\n  Houlder Bros               118,802      95,587     102,893\n  Indo-China                 109,089      16,020      45,364\n  India Gen                   65,738      41,974     118,379\n  King                       102,319      17,426      90,392\n  Leyland (Fredk.)         1,441,690     620,839     589,810\n  Lamport & Holt             332,897     149,108     200,691\n  London & Northern          586,299     118,419     135,541\n  Mercantile                 259,159      93,391     129,946\n  Moor                       335,349        --       254,000\n  Neptune                    146,718      73,310     112,563\n  Nitrate Producers          381,599     134,826     125,990\n  Pool                       601,338     118,000        --\n  Pyman                      165,078     72,504       62,413\n  Royal Mail                 808,731     98,232      436,470\n  Redcroft                   117,953     13,125       21,396\n  Sutherland                 295,220     74,841       41,779\n  White Star               1,968,285    887,548    1,121,268\n\n\n  COAL, IRON AND ENGINEERING\n\n  Albion Steam Coal           44,536      36,820       24,094\n  Arrol (Sir W.) & Co        119,060      49,756       51,096\n  Brown, Bayley's Steel       32,017       1,578       29,758\n  Barrow Hematite            119,377      51,518      104,664\n  British Aluminium          180,057     156,066      154,488\n  Beyer, Peacock              54,177     109,783       87,843\n  British Westinghouse       176,752     151,627      106,494\n  Brit.Ins. & Helsby         295,131     277,428      247,351\n  Bell Bros                  145,360      45,969      128,736\n  Bessemer (Hy.)              55,348      35,826       23,308\n  Cammell, Laird             303,841     237,899      174,126\n  Cory (W.) and Son          453,136     215,328      313,906\n  Cargo Fleet                162,276     131,142      124,219\n  Callender's Cable          113,266      98,692       91,861\n  Carlton M. Colliery        188,545     128,413      177,025\n  Clayton & Shuttleworth      72,787      44,643       53,496\n  Consolidated Cambrian      185,139     140,097      147,648\n  Crossley Bros               65,337      15,347       42,517\n  D. Davis                   200,127     215,744      217,970\n  Dorman, Long               404,524     237,579      257,863\n  Edinburgh Collier's         64,807     17,420        63,969\n  Fife Coal                  224,058      89,866         --\n  Gt. West. Colliery         137,008     111,821      158,420\n  Hadfields                  265,403     139,301      109,513\n  Henley's Tel               153,224     112,898      106,380\n  Howard & Bullough          136,152      32,766      163,066\n  Jessop (W.) & Sons         103,726      60,354       87,343\n  Knowles (A.) & Sons         47,199      18,329       29,140\n  Leyland Motors             252,107       85,037        --\n  Lysaght (John)             414,764      313,707     330,576\n  Locket's Merthyr Colleries  45,635        6,229      22,238\n  Met'n Carriage             372,140      321,091     365,739\n  Newton, Chambers            60,669        4,182      89,523\n  N. B. Locomotive           174,241      160,644     140,889\n  North's Nav. Coal          130,071       65,578     100,144\n  Parkgate Iron              107,344       66,643      85,169\n  Projectile                 194,136       30,739      18,880\n  Powell Duffryn             438,799      422,204     364,421\n  Pease & Partners           435,772      248,216     385,975\n  Rhymney Iron               127,733       52,488     131,901\n  S. Durham Steel            239,868      150,257     302,955\n  Shelton                    109,554       63,465      81,185\n  Stewarts & Lloyds          256,308      233,420     246,065\n  Swan, Hunter, etc          305,083      217,498     264,124\n  United Collieries          216,065       57,600     100,503\n  Wigan Coal, etc            143,288       44,829     138,118\n\n\n  MISCELLANEOUS\n\n  Angus (Geo.) & Co           54,461       43,574      32,123\n  Burmah Oil               1,413,170    1,411,279   1,363,389\n  Bradford Dyers             568,623      387,923     430,081\n  Bleachers' Association     416,394      197,835     423,416\n  Bryant and May             115,159      101,616      90,158\n  Broxburn Oil                46,729       22,252      57,046\n  British Cotton and Wool\n    Dyers                     93,524       42,297       9,290\n  Brunner, Mond            1,011,590      799,322     769,343\n  Bovril                     168,796      137,584     119,813\n  Buttons                     63,297       38,880      32,834\n  Borax Consolidated         205,825      195,449     235,285\n  Barlow & Jones              46,798       38,936      33,584\n  British Oil, etc., Mills   243,110      111,203     116,541\n  British and Argentine Meat 651,289       67,288        --\n  Curtis's & Harvey          143,830       77,754      48,117\n  Courtaulds                 741,668      520,349     474,154[89]\n  Calico Prin. (half yr.)    176,521        --         55,495\n  E. Velvet, etc., Dyers      70,833       61,161      72,467\n  Fore St. Warehouse          48,957       28,597        --\n  Forestal Land              900,947      234,065     383,362\n  Fine Spinners              535,854      391,057     613,415\n  Gas Light & Coke           604,314      449,510     522,710\n  Hollins (W.) & Co          105,639       65,786      65,986\n  Henry (A. and S.)          249,713      104,098     122,528\n  Imperial Tobacco         3,699,891    3,533,360   3,354,476\n  Lever Bros               1,265,933    1,152,107     988,238\n  Linen Thread               257,418      188,773     189,142\n  Lennards                    41,300       34,457      30,377\n  Lister and Co              133,874       94,403     151,458\n  Lyons (J.) & Co            278,293      276,403     353,303\n  Maypole Dairy              528,274      488,026     489,643\n  Mandleberg (J.)             74,506       52,049      57,964\n  Pumpherston Oil            134,927       74,010     140,025\n  Rylands & Sons (half yr.)  120,032       55,179        --\n  Rotherham (Jer.)           104,925       74,638      59,692\n  Salt Union                 140,524       89,443      82,791\n  Sears (J.) & Co             82,070       65,032      57,061\n  Stead & Simpson             59,898       32,762      30,357\n  Samnuggur Jute             299,829       44,307      86,574\n  Spillers & Bakers          217,416      367,866      89,351\n  United Alkali              341,986      217,081     193,604\n  Winterbottom Book Cloth    171,191      119,795     165,213\n  Webley & Scott              61,277       16,376       9,511\n  Whiteaway, Laidlaw         131,577      107,952     129,790\n  Watson (Joseph)            122,001       89,290     103,999\n  Young's Paraffin            47,953       24,139      80,152\n\n\n  RUBBER, &c.\n                            1916       1915       1914\n                              L          L          L\n  Anglo-Malay              121,224     76,931    104,583\n  Assam-Dooars              51,674     22,269       --\n  Amalgamated Tea          157,818     98,176     78,787\n  Batu Tiga                 56,293     22,315     24,762\n  Bukit Sembawang           33,989     14,344      6,090\n  Consolidated Tea         479,815    289,262    247,633\n  Chersonese                59,602     35,019     29,081\n  Ceylon Tea               163,899    108,300     93,900\n  Damansara                 48,680     30,580     29,081\n  Eastern Produce          126,406     71,724     69,004\n  Grand Central            248,201    132,019     87,554\n  Highlands & Lowlands     108,343     75,425     79,079\n  Jorehaut Tea,             64,508     43,204     34,088\n  Jhanzie Tea               35,881     17,286     15,113\n  Klanang                   37,918     20,458     24,257\n  Kuala Selangor            47,748     42,013     32,798\n  Kanan Devan              208,612    120,119    106,909\n  Linggi                   125,739     78,899     83,746\n  Lunuva                    32,994     12,599     12,602\n  Malacca                  252,006    144,224    131,156\n  Nuwara Eliya              49,915     21,921       --\n  Nordanal                  39,658     36,686     49,344\n  Panawatte Tea             38,167     23,833       --\n  Rub. Est., Johore         42,703     22,541     10,931\n  Rani Travancore           63,791     35,349     32,259\n  Singlo Tea                68,857     36,166     31,449\n  Sungei Way                38,532     36,533     25,624\n  Straits                  157,678    164,750    185,426\n  Sungei Kapar              59,966     39,426     42,364\n  Selangor                  55,457     58,007     41,940\n  Seremban                  43,410     24,198     22,471\n  Sunnygama                 63,688     43,142     31,931\n\n\n13. _The New Witness_, June 22, 1916:\n\nThe Tenth Ordinary General Meeting of the Forestal Land, Timber, and\nRailways Co. (Ltd.) was held on Friday last, at Winchester House, E.C.,\nBaron Emile B. d'Erlanger (chairman of the company), presiding.\n\nThe chairman said that the share capital remained unaltered, and the\ndebenture debt had only been decreased by the yearly amortisation. No\nless than L143,600 had been added to the depreciation account, making it\nL634,170. Credit balances had swollen by the sum of L175,589. The profit\non the year was L900,947, as against L234,064 last year. On the credit\nside, properties stood at L4,405,917, and had increased by the new\nproperties acquired. The live stock stood at L34,000 less than last\nyear, due to a smaller stock of \"Invernada\" cattle. The stocks of\nextract and felled timber had risen by L115,000, principally owing to a\nlarger stock of felled timber. Debit balances had risen to L156,000. In\nthe profit and loss account the trading profit was L1,281,299, as\ncompared with L614,879 last year, and, after deducting London charges,\ndebenture interest, depreciation, and legal reserve, there was left a\nprofit of L900,947.\n\n\n14. _The Westminster Gazette_, July 15, 1916:\n\nThe accounts of the W. and C. T. Jones Steamship Company, Limited, of\nCardiff, for the year ended June 30, show that, with a fleet of thirteen\nsteamers, L524,855 profit has been earned, representing 187 per cent on\nthe capital of L280,000.\n\nThe previous year's earnings were L87,105.\n\nA dividend of 15 per cent, making, with 10 per cent interim dividend, 25\nper cent for the year, free of income tax, is declared.\n\n\n15. _The New Statesman_, July 1, 1916:\n\nThe prolonged debate in the House of Commons on the Excess Profits Tax\nended on Monday in a vote which found Mr. McKenna's critics in a small\nthough substantial minority. The point actually at issue was not very\nsimple, and in spite of repeated explanations several of the most\npersistent speakers never grasped it. The demand was that all\n\"controlled establishments\" should be exempt from the excess profits tax\nin consideration of the patriotic services they were rendering to their\ncountry and of the \"bargain\" alleged to have been concluded with the\nMinistry of Munitions whereby any profits they may make in excess of 20\nper cent above their normal profits are in any event taken by the State.\nThis meant, of course, that a controlled firm which made a profit of\nL50,000 in 1914, and of L60,000 (due to war contracts) in 1916, would\nretain the whole of their excess profits without reduction. Mr. McKenna\nargued that such firms, having the advantages of practically compulsory\nlabour and freedom from Trade Union restrictions, ought, at any rate,\nnot to be let off more lightly than uncontrolled firms. It is amazing\nthat such a proposition should have to be stated at all.\n\nThe point of view of the ordinary member of the public undoubtedly is\nthat excess profits on the making of munitions simply ought not to\nexist. If engineering firms are permitted to maintain their old standard\nof profit and dividend (with fair arrangements, of course, for new\ncapital and depreciation), they ought to be more than satisfied. Great\nheat was developed on the debate by the representatives of various\ncapitalist interests, notably Sir Arthur Markham, Mr. J. M. Henderson,\nSir Croydon Marks, and Sir Alfred Mond; and some of them were not even\nashamed to hint that if their demands were not agreed to there might be\na diminution of output. At a moment when tens of thousands of men are\ngiving up their whole incomes as well as their savings, in order to\nfight for their country, it is impossible to imagine any spectacle more\nunedifying for the wage-earning class than that of these malcontent\ncapitalist legislators angrily fighting for their extra war-profits.\nWhen one remembers that it was these same gentlemen who were so\nenthusiastic for compelling younger and poorer men to sacrifice\neverything they possess, it is hard to find words to say what ought to\nbe said of them. We hope, at all events, that the names of those who\nvoted against the Government on the division will not be allowed to be\nforgotten in the constituencies.\n\n\n16. _Pall Mall Gazette_, January 31, 1916:\n\n_From Our Own Correspondent._\n\nPARIS, _Saturday_.\n\nThe trouble that has been brewing for months past at the Central Markets\nhas now come to a head. A well-known dealer was suspended by the Prefect\nof Police; the Home Office thought this insufficient and revoked his\nlicence; and there is now talk of a prosecution.\n\nThe Central Markets are not a place which the habitual Parisian cares to\nventure into. Apart from its own peculiar and particularly pungent\nodours, the markets are peopled with a class of stallkeeper who do not\nexactly keep their tongue in their pocket, as the French say. They have,\nin fact, a flow of language, and it requires a brave man to make a stand\nagainst it--and all the brave men are at the front just now.\n\nBut the Central Markets not only have a language of their own; they have\nways and methods of dealing that require long years of acquaintance to\nfathom, so only experts venture to make head or tail of them.\n\nAll this means that between the Central Markets, at the depository, and\nmost of all that Paris wants to eat, and the actual consumer as\nrepresented by the ordinary housewife starting out on her daily round of\nshopping, there move and live a host of intermediaries. Large as their\nnumber is, they cannot compare with the middlemen who squeeze in between\nthe Central Markets and the actual grower, breeder, or producer.\n\nWith so many hands for produce to pass through, each one eager to grab\nall that it can for itself before it passes the stuff along, it is small\nwonder that prices grow, not taking into account the burden of taxes and\nother charges the goods have to bear on their journey from the farm to\nthe household.\n\n\nARMY OF INSPECTORS\n\nThe police have an army of inspectors for watching and superintending\nthe work of the markets. The rules drawn up for their regulation would\nmore than fill an old-fashioned three-volume novel, and each one\nprovides for penalties severer and stricter than the other. Yet the\nprofitable game of rigging the market and everything connected with it\nis in full swing, and no one is more fooled than the police, unless it\nbe the public.\n\nSince the war broke out, the State, the city, and the public alike,\nbacked up by the small retail trader, have done their best to get even\nwith the Central Markets. The more they try to put things right the\nworse they seem to get. Prices appear to ease for a brief space, but\nthey soon become inflated once more. Or, if they do not, the particular\ncommodity concerned simply disappears in some mysterious fashion until\nthe \"powers that be\" submit to the inevitable, and shut their eyes to\nscheming they are helpless to prevent.\n\n\nAS MUCH FOOD AS USUAL\n\nThe worst of it is that statistics can always be produced to show that\nthe rise in prices is purely and simply the outcome of a falling off in\nsupplies. Arrivals of fruits, vegetables, and fish in the last quarter\nof the past year were exactly half the average supply of an ordinary\nyear; eggs were two-thirds below the proper figures, meat some 4,000\ntons short, butter six tons, cheeses only a ton.\n\nOf course, the population of the city has diminished also to a certain\nextent, but not so much as might be expected considering that there is\npractically no single family that has not one or more members at the\nfront.\n\nThey have been replaced by refugees, sick and wounded soldiers, huge war\nadministrations of one kind and another. Paris consequently wants almost\nas much feeding as in ordinary times, not taking any account of the fact\nthat portions of both the British and French Armies still buy provisions\non the Paris markets.\n\nNotwithstanding the legitimate reasons that can be put forward to\nexplain the upward trend of prices, the authorities know well enough\nthat all is not so innocent and above board as it appears. One or two\nmore glaring instances than usual of manipulation have put them on the\nright track at last. Other steps may also be expected, for public\nopinion has got to the point that either the \"inside ring\" must be\nbroken up or popular resentment will take a form that no Government can\nafford to overlook or affect to ignore.\n\n\n17. _The Daily News_, August 16, 1915:\n\nA YEAR OF ECONOMIC WAR\n\nThe _Vorwaerts_, without boasting, as Dr. Helfferich has been doing, of\nGermany's financial invincibility, yet sees cause for satisfaction in\nthe economic condition of the Empire after twelve months of war.\n\nThe upheaval of the first week of war was indeed serious, and the grim\nspectre of unemployment was in the air. But it was soon laid.\n\nThe best results were obtained in the sphere of unemployment. At the\nbeginning of the war it was about 22-1/2 per cent, in October only 10.9\nper cent, and in May it had further sunk to 2.9 per cent. The figures\nfor June were 2.6 per cent as against 2.5 per cent in the previous\nJune.... Similarly the daily output of coal of the Rhenish Westphalian\nCoal Syndicate, which in July, 1914, reached 327,974 tons, sank in\nAugust to 170,816 tons, in September rose again to 211,995, and in\nOctober to 223,760, the figures for that month being 60 per cent of\nthose of the previous October.... In later months, in spite of the\ncalling up of more and more workers, it has only been 25 to 27 per cent\nbelow the normal.\n\nThe writer tells the same story of the iron and textile industries, and\ntraces the good results to the fact that the supplies of raw materials\nwere far greater than had been thought. For instance, there were about\n700,000 bales of cotton more than are needed in a normal year. Besides\nwhich the stores of conquered countries were at the disposal of the\nconquerors. The only trades which really suffered were those in\nluxuries.\n\nThe article concludes thus:\n\n     The German trade has survived the shocks of the first year of war\n     better than the most convinced optimist could have hoped, and\n     better than the organisation of other belligerents. All fears of\n     immediate inevitable industrial collapse which haunted us at the\n     beginning of the war have been dissipated. Instead of this we meet\n     in all industrial circles with the consciousness [often much\n     exaggerated] that \"We can endure.\"\n\nThe words in brackets are significant.\n\n\n18. _Pall Mall Gazette_, November 10, 1916:\n\n  LIVING ON WAR\n\n  KRUPPS' PROFIT JUMPS FROM 1-1/2 MILLIONS TO 4-1/2\n\n  AMSTERDAM, _Tuesday Night_.\n\nAn Essen telegram states that the clear profit last year of Krupps\namounted to 86,400,000 marks (L4,320,000), as compared with a profit of\n33,900,000 marks (L1,695,000) in the preceding year. A dividend of 12\nper cent has been distributed.--Reuter.\n\n\n_19. Pall Mall Gazette:_\n\nGERMAN DIVIDENDS\n\nECONOMIC POSITION OF SOME OF HER COMPANIES\n\nThe 1914 dividends of over sixty limited companies, nearly all German,\nand the remainder Austrian, show that in the case of sixteen companies\nthe dividends amounted to 20 per cent or over, the average being 25-3/16\nper cent. These companies (says the _Morning Post_) are mainly engaged\nin the production of leather, dynamite, explosives, india-rubber, arms,\nammunition, and powder. In one case, that of an explosives company in\nHamburg, the dividend attained 40 per cent.\n\nGermany is still barring the Swiss frontier, and for the last five days\nthe German post arrived at Berne very late or not at all, thus pointing\nto great activity in military matters beyond the German-Swiss frontier.\n\nAs further proof, if proof were needed, of the sufficiency of Germany's\nfood supplies, it is pointed out that she now offers to send to\nSwitzerland large quantities of potatoes.\n\n\n20. _The Times_, July 5, 1916:\n\n  WAR PROFIT-MONGERS IN RUSSIA\n\n  _From our Correspondent._\n\n  PETROGRAD, _July 2_.\n\nThe clergy will to-morrow publicly anathematise the \"freebooters of the\nrear,\" who are amassing huge fortunes at the expense of the public.\n\n21. _The Westminster Gazette_, Aug. 28, 1916:\n\n  GERMAN WAR SCANDALS\n\n  700 PER CENT PROFIT FOR EAST PRUSSIAN LANDOWNERS\n\n  ZURICH, _Sunday_.\n\nDetails of several recent corrupt affairs which have come to light in\nGermany have reached Switzerland.\n\nAt Mainz a timber merchant was arrested for bribing army officers to\nsecure contracts for his firm. The official investigation revealed that\nhe had paid a total of L50,000 in bribes to army officers. Some of the\nindividual bribes were as high as L2,500. This timber merchant, who was\nalmost a poor man before the war, has accumulated in two years a fortune\nwhich compelled him to pay income-tax on an income of L25,000 per annum.\n\nAnother scandalous affair was discovered in Herr von Batocki's new\nImperial Food Department. One of his officials, Bernot by name, was\nbribed by numerous East Prussian landowners to have the crops from their\nestates bought by the Government at exorbitant prices. Bernot pocketed\nsome L15,000, and the landowners in question sold their wheat at a\nprofit of 700 per cent.--Wireless Press.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 89: Net loss of L276,560 in first half 1914-15.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_BY THE SAME AUTHOR_\n\nLETTERS FROM GREECE\n\nF'cap 8vo. 2s. _net_\n\nCASSANDRA IN TROY\n\nSm. 4to. 5s. _net_\n\n\n\n\n_MARTIN SECKER_\n\n_HIS COMPLETE CATALOGUE MCMXVII_\n\n_The Books in this list should be obtainable from all Booksellers and\nLibraries, and if any difficulty is experienced the Publisher will be\nglad to be informed of the fact. He will also be glad if those\ninterested in receiving from time to time Announcement Lists,\nProspectuses, &c, of new and forthcoming books from Number Five John\nStreet will send their names and addresses to him for this purpose. Any\nbook in this list may be obtained on approval through the booksellers,\nor direct from the Publisher, on remitting him the published price, plus\nthe postage.\n\nAll prices indicated in this Catalogue are NET.\n\nMARTIN SECKER Publisher Number Five John Street Adelphi London\n\nTelephone Gerrard 4779 Telegraphic Address: Psophidian London_\n\n\n\nMartin Secker's Catalogue\n\n\nPART ONE INDEX OF AUTHORS\n\n\n  ABERCROMBIE, LASCELLES\n    SPECULATIVE DIALOGUES.                   _Cr. 8vo. 5s._\n    HARDY: A CRITICAL STUDY.             _Dy. 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n    THE EPIC\n       (_The Art and Craft of Letters_).   _F'cap 8vo. 1s._\n\n  AFLALO, F. G.\n    BEHIND THE RANGES.            _Wide Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d._\n    REGILDING THE CRESCENT.            _Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d._\n    BIRDS IN THE CALENDAR.             _Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d._\n\n  ALLSHORN, LIONEL\n    STUPOR MUNDI.                     _Medium Octavo. 16s._\n\n  APPERSON, G. L.\n    THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF SMOKING.         _Post  8vo. 6s._\n\n  ARMSTRONG, DONALD\n    THE MARRIAGE OF QUIXOTE.               _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n\n  ARTZIBASHEF, MICHAEL\n    SANINE. _Preface by Gilbert Cannan._   _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n    BREAKING-POINT.                        _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n    THE MILLIONAIRE.\n       _Intro. by the Author._             _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n    TALES OF THE REVOLUTION.               _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n\n  BARRINGTON, MICHAEL\n    GRAHAME OF CLAVERHOUSE.            _Imperial 8vo. 30s._\n    _Edition de Luxe                                 _63s._\n\n  BENNETT, ARNOLD\n    THOSE UNITED STATES.                _Post 8vo. 2s. 6d._\n\n  BLACK, CLEMENTINA\n    THE LINLEYS OF BATH.                 _Medium 8vo. 16s._\n    THE CUMBERLAND LETTERS.                _Med. 8vo. 16s._\n\n  BOULGER, D. C.\n    THE BATTLE OF THE BOYNE.               _Med. 8vo. 21s._\n\n  BROWN, IVOR\n    YEARS OF PLENTY.                       _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n    SECURITY.                              _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n\n  BURROW, C. KENNETT\n    CARMINA VARIA.                     _F'cap 8vo. 2s. 6d._\n\n  CALDERON, GEORGE (With St. John Hankin)\n    THOMPSON: A COMEDY.                  _Sq. Cr. 8vo. 2s._\n\n  CANNAN, GILBERT\n    BUTLER: A CRITICAL STUDY.            _Dy. 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n    SATIRE\n       (_Art and Craft of Letters_).       _F'cap 8vo. 1s._\n\n  CHESTERTON, G. K.\n    MAGIC: A FANTASTIC COMEDY.           _Sq. Cr. 8vo. 2s._\n\n  COKE, DESMOND\n    THE ART OF SILHOUETTE.             _Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d._\n\n  CRAVEN, A. SCOTT\n    THE FOOL'S TRAGEDY.                    _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n\n  CROSLAND, T. W. H.\n    THE ENGLISH SONNET.                 _Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n    COLLECTED POEMS.                   _Small 4vo. 7s. 6d._\n    WAR POEMS.                            _Crown 8vo._ 1s._\n    THE BOOK OF ENGLISH SONNETS.\n      (_Edited with an Introduction._)      _Pott 8vo. 5s._\n\n  DAWSON, WARRINGTON\n    THE TRUE DIMENSION.                    _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n\n  DE SELINCOURT, BASIL\n    WHITMAN: A CRITICAL STUDY.           _Dy. 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n    RHYME\n      (_The Art and Craft of Letters_).    _F'cap 8vo. 1s._\n\n  DOUGLAS, NORMAN\n    FOUNTAINS IN THE SAND.          _Wide Dy. 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n    OLD CALABRIA.                         _Demy. 8vo. 15s._\n    SOUTH WIND.                            _Crown 8vo. 6s._\n  DRAYCOTT, G. M.\n    MAHOMET: FOUNDER OF ISLAM.          _Dy. 8vo. 12s. 6d._\n\n  DRINKWATER, JOHN\n    MORRIS: A CRITICAL STUDY.            _Dy. 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n    ROSSETTI: A CRITICAL STUDY.          _Dy. 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n    THE LYRIC\n       (_The Art and Craft of Letters_).   _F'cap 8vo. 1s._\n\n  FALLS, CYRIL\n    KIPLING: A CRITICAL STUDY.           _Dy. 8vo. 7s. 6d._\n\n  FEA, ALLAN\n    OLD ENGLISH HOUSES.                _Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d._\n    NOOKS AND CORNERS OF OLD ENGLAND.                 _5s._\n\n  FLECKER, J. E.\n    COLLECTED POEMS.                   _Small 4to. 7s. 6d._\n    THE GOLDEN JOURNEY TO SAMARKAND.                  _5s._\n\n  FRANCIS, RENE\n    EGYPTIAN AESTHETICS.            _Wide Demy 8vo. 7s .6d._\n\n  GRETTON, R. H.\n    HISTORY\n       (_The Art and Craft of Letters_).   _F'cap 8vo. 1s._\n\n  HANKIN, ST. JOHN\n    THE DRAMATIC WORKS, with an Introduction by John Drinkwater.\n       _Small 4to. Definitive Limited Edition\n                            in Three Volumes._       _25s._\n    THE RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL.          _Sq. Cr. 8vo. 2s._\n    THE CASSILIS ENGAGEMENT.             _Sq. Cr. 8vo. 2s._\n\n  HANKIN, ST. JOHN (_continued_)\n    THE CHARITY THAT BEGAN AT HOME.                   _2s._\n    THE CONSTANT LOVER, ETC.            _Sq. Cr. 8vo.  2s._\n\n  HAUPTMANN, GERHART\n    THE COMPLETE DRAMATIC\n        WORKS.        _6 vols. Crown 8vo.  5s. per volume._\n\n  HEWLETT, WILLIAM\n    TELLING THE TRUTH.                    _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    UNCLE'S ADVICE: A NOVEL IN LETTERS.     _Cr. 8vo.  6s._\n    THE CHILD AT THE WINDOW.              _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    INTRODUCING WILLIAM ALLISON.          _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  HORSNELL, HORACE\n    THE BANKRUPT.                         _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  HOWE, P. P.\n    THE REPERTORY THEATRE.              _Cr. 8vo. 2s.  6d._\n    DRAMATIC PORTRAITS.                   _Crown 8vo.  5s._\n    SHAW: A CRITICAL STUDY.             _Dy. 8vo. 7s.  6d._\n    SYNGE: A CRITICAL STUDY.            _Dy. 8vo. 7s.  6d._\n    CRITICISM\n       (_The Art and Craft of Letters_).  _F'cap 8vo.  1s._\n\n  HUEFFER, FORD MADOX\n    JAMES: A CRITICAL STUDY.            _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n    COLLECTED POEMS.                       _Demy 8vo.  6s._\n\n  IBSEN, HENRIK\n    PEER GYNT. A New Translation\n       by R. Ellis Roberts.          _Wide Crown 8vo.  5s._\n\n  JACOB, HAROLD\n    PERFUMES OF ARABY.            _Wide Demy 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n\n  JAMES, HENRY\n    THE TURN OF THE SCREW.\n    THE LESSON OF THE MASTER.\n    THE DEATH OF THE LION.\n    THE ASPERN PAPERS.\n    DAISY MILLER.\n    THE COXON FUND.\n\n  JAMES, HENRY (continued)\n    THE REVERBERATOR.\n    THE ALTAR OF THE DEAD.\n    THE BEAST IN THE JUNGLE.\n    THE FIGURE IN THE CARPET.\n    GLASSES.\n    THE PUPIL.                   _Each F'cap 8vo.  2s. 6d._\n\n  JOHNSON, OWEN\n    THE SALAMANDER.                       _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    MAKING MONEY.                         _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  LAMONT, L. M.\n    A CORONAL: AN ANTHOLOGY.          _F'cap 8vo.  2s. 6d._\n\n  LEWISOHN, L.\n    THE MODERN DRAMA.                     _Crown 8vo.  5s._\n\n  LLUELLYN, RICHARD\n    THE IMPERFECT BRANCH.                 _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  LOW, IVY\n    THE QUESTING BEAST.                   _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  LYNCH, BOHUN\n    UNOFFICIAL.                           _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE COMPLETE GENTLEMAN.               _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  McFEE, WILLIAM\n    CASUALS OF THE SEA.                   _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  MACHEN, ARTHUR\n    HIEROGLYPHICS.                   _F'cap 8vo.  2s. 6d._\n\n  MACKENZIE, COMPTON\n    THE PASSIONATE ELOPEMENT.      _Cr. 8vo.  6s. and 2s._\n    CARNIVAL.                    _Crown 8vo.  6s. and 2s._\n    SINISTER STREET. Volume I.     _Cr. 8vo.  6s. and 2s._\n    SINISTER STREET. Volume II.          _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    GUY AND PAULINE.                     _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    KENSINGTON RHYMES.                   _Crown 4to.  5s._\n\n  MAVROGORDATO, JOHN\n    LETTERS FROM GREECE.                  _F'cap 8vo.  2s._\n    CASSANDRA IN TROY.                    _Small 4to.  5s._\n    THE WORLD IN CHAINS                   _Crown 8vo.  2s._\n\n  MELVILLE, LEWIS\n    SOME ECCENTRICS AND A WOMAN.       _Dy. 8vo.  10s. 6d._\n\n  METHLEY, VIOLET\n    CAMILLE DESMOULINS: A Biography.       _Dy. 8vo.  15s._\n\n  MEYNELL, VIOLA\n    LOT BARROW.                           _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    MODERN LOVERS.                        _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    COLUMBINE.                            _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    NARCISSUS.                            _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  MURRY, J. MIDDLETON\n    DOSTOEVSKY: A Critical Study.       _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n\n  NORTH, LAURENCE\n    IMPATIENT GRISELDA                    _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE GOLIGHTLYS: FATHER AND SON.         _Cr. 8vo.  6s._\n\n  ONIONS, OLIVER\n    WIDDERSHINS.                  _Crown 8vo.  6s. and 2s._\n    IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE.        _Cr. 8vo.  6s._\n    THE DEBIT ACCOUNT.                    _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE STORY OF LOUIE.                   _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  PAIN, BARRY\n    ONE KIND AND ANOTHER.           _Cr. 8vo.  6s. and 2s._\n    COLLECTED TALES: Volume I.           _Medium 8vo.  5s._\n    COLLECTED TALES: Volume II.          _Medium 8vo.  5s._\n    THE SHORT STORY\n     (_The Art and Craft of Letters_).    _F'cap 8vo.  1s._\n\n  PALMER, JOHN\n    PETER PARAGON.                        _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE KING'S MEN.                       _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    COMEDY\n     (_The Art and Craft of Letters_).    _F'cap 8vo.  1s._\n\n  PERUGINI, MARK E.\n    THE ART OF BALLET.                    _Demy 8vo.  15s._\n\n  PHILIPS, AUSTIN\n    BATTLES OF LIFE.                      _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  PRESTON, ANNA\n    THE RECORD OF A SILENT LIFE.          _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  REID, FORREST\n    YEATS: A CRITICAL STUDY.            _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n\n  ROBERTS, R. ELLIS\n    IBSEN: A CRITICAL STUDY.            _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n    PEER GYNT: A NEW TRANSLATION.            Cr. 8vo.  5s._\n\n  SABATINI, RAFAEL\n    THE SEA-HAWK.                   _Cr. 8vo.  6s. and 2s._\n    THE LION'S SKIN.                      _Crown 8vo.  2s._\n    THE BANNER OF THE BULL.               _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE SNARE.                            _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  SAND, MAURICE\n    THE HISTORY OF THE HARLEQUINADE.\n      _Two Volumes._             _Med. 8vo.  25s. the set._\n\n  SCOTT-JAMES, R. A.\n    PERSONALITY IN LITERATURE.          Demy 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n\n  SIDGWICK, FRANK\n    THE BALLAD (_Art and Craft of Letters_).          _1s._\n\n  SIMMS, EVELYN\n    A VISION OF CONSOLATION.              _Crown 8vo.  1s._\n    THE CROWNING PURPOSE.                 _Crown 8vo.  1s._\n\n  SOLOGUB, FEODOR\n    THE OLD HOUSE.                        _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE LITTLE DEMON.                     _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE CREATED LEGEND.                   _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  SQUIRE, J. C.\n    GEORGIAN POETS.                       _Crown 8vo.  5s._\n    TRICKS OF THE TRADE.              _Crown 8vo. 2s.  6d._\n    THE GOLD TREE.                      Demy 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n\n  STONE, CHRISTOPHER\n    THE BURNT HOUSE.                      _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    PARODY (_Art and Craft of Letters_).              _1s._\n\n  STRAUS, RALPH\n    CARRIAGES AND COACHES.                _Med. 8vo.  18s._\n\n  SWINNERTON, FRANK\n    GISSING: A CRITICAL STUDY.          _Dy. 8vo. 7s.  6d._\n    STEVENSON: A CRITICAL STUDY.        _Dy. 8vo. 7s.  6d._\n\n  SWINNERTON, FRANK (_continued_)\n    NOCTURNE.\n    THE CHASTE WIFE.                   _Each Cr. 8vo.  6s._\n\n  TAYLOR, G. R. STIRLING\n    _Mary Wollstonecraft._              Demy 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n\n  TAYLOR, UNA\n    MAETERLINCK: A CRITICAL STUDY.      _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n\n  THOMAS EDWARD\n    SWINBURNE: A CRITICAL STUDY.        _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n    PATER: A CRITICAL STUDY.            _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n    THE TENTH MUSE.                   _F'cap 8vo.  2s. 6d._\n\n  VAUGHAN, H. M.\n    MELEAGER.                             _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE DIAL OF AHAZ.                     _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    AN AUSTRALASIAN WANDER-YEAR.       _Dy. 8vo.  10s. 6d._\n\n  WALPOLE, HUGH\n    FORTITUDE.                            _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE DUCHESS OF WREXE.                 _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE DARK FOREST.                      _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n\n  WEST, JULIUS\n    CHESTERTON: A CRITICAL STUDY.       _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n\n  WILLIAMS, ORLO\n    VIE DE BOHEME.                        _Demy 8vo.  15s._\n    MEREDITH: A CRITICAL STUDY.         _Dy. 8vo.  7s. 6d._\n    THE ESSAY (_The Art and Craft of Letters_).       _1s._\n\n  YOUNG, FILSON\n    NEW LEAVES.                      _Wide Crown 8vo.  5s._\n    A CHRISTMAS CARD.                     _Demy 16mo.  1s._\n\n  YOUNG, FRANCIS BRETT\n    DEEP SEA.                             _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE DARK TOWER.                       _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    THE IRON AGE.                         _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    FIVE DEGREES SOUTH                    _Crown 8vo.  1s._\n\n  YOUNG, F. & E. BRETT\n    UNDERGROWTH.                          _Crown 8vo.  6s._\n    BRIDGES: A CRITICAL STUDY.           _Dy. 8vo  7s. 6d._\n\n\nPART TWO: CLASSIFIED INDEX OF TITLES\n\n\n_General Literature_\n\n  ART OF BALLET, THE. _By Mark E. Perugini._\n\n  ART OF SILHOUETTE, THE. _By Desmond Coke._\n\n  BATTLE OF THE BOYNE, THE. _By D. C. Boulger._\n\n  BEHIND THE RANGES, _By F. G. Aflalo._\n\n  BIRDS IN THE CALENDAR. _By F. G. Aflalo._\n\n  CAMILLE DESMOULINS. _By Violet Methley._\n\n  CARRIAGES AND COACHES. _By Ralph Straus._\n\n  CHRISTMAS CARD, A. _By Filson Young._\n\n  CUMBERLAND LETTERS, THE. _By Clementina Black._\n\n  DRAMATIC PORTRAITS. _By P. P. Howe._\n\n  ENGLISH SONNET, THE. _By T. W. H. Crosland._\n\n  GEORGIAN POETS. _By J. C. Squire._\n\n  GOLD TREE, THE. _By J. C. Squire._\n\n  GRAHAME OF CLAVERHOUSE. _By Michael Barrington._\n\n  HIEROGLYPHICS. _By Arthur Machen._\n\n  HISTORY OF THE HARLEQUINADE, THE. _By M. Sand._\n\n  LETTERS FROM GREECE. _By John Mavrogordato._\n\n  LINLEYS OF BATH, THE. _By Clementina Black._\n\n  MAHOMET. _By G. M. Draycott._\n\n  MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT. _By G. R. Stirling Taylor._\n\n  NEW LEAVES. _By Filson Young._\n\n  PERSONALITY IN LITERATURE. _By R. A. Scott-James._\n\n  REGILDING THE CRESCENT. _By F. G. Aflalo._\n\n  SOCIAL HISTORY OF SMOKING, THE. _By G. L. Apperson._\n\n  SOME ECCENTRICS AND A WOMAN. _By Lewis Melville._\n\n  SPECULATIVE DIALOGUES. _By Lascelles Abercrombie._\n\n  STUPOR MUNDI. _By Lionel Allshorn._\n\n  TENTH MUSE, THE. _By Edward Thomas._\n\n  TRICKS OF THE TRADE. _By J. C Squire._\n\n  THOSE UNITED STATES. _By Arnold Bennett._\n\n  VIE DE BOHEME. _By Orlo Williams._\n\n  WORLD IN CHAINS, THE. _By J. Mavrogordato._\n\n\n  _Verse_\n\n  BOOK OF ENGLISH SONNETS, THE.\n\n  CARMINA VARIA. _By C. Kennett Burrow._\n\n  COLLECTED POEMS OF T. W. H. CROSLAND.\n\n  COLLECTED POEMS OF J. E. FLECKER.\n\n  COLLECTED POEMS OF F. M. HUEFFER.\n\n  CORONAL, A. A NEW ANTHOLOGY. _By L. M. Lamont._\n\n  CROWNING PURPOSE, THE. _By Evelyn Simms._\n\n  FIVE DEGREES SOUTH. _By F. Brett Young._\n\n  GOLDEN JOURNEY TO SAMARKAND, THE. _By J. E. Flecker._\n\n  KENSINGTON RHYMES. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  VISION OF CONSOLATION, A. _By Evelyn Simms._\n\n  WAR POEMS BY 'X.'\n\n\n  _Drama_\n\n  DRAMATIC WORKS OF ST. JOHN HANKIN.    _3 vols._\n\n  DRAMATIC WORKS OF GERHART HAUPTMANN.  _6 vols._\n\n  CASSANDRA IN TROY. _By John Mavrogordato._\n\n  MAGIC. _By G. K. Chesterton._\n\n  MODERN DRAMA, THE. _By L. Lewisohn._\n\n  PEER GYNT. _Translated by R. Ellis Roberts._\n\n  REPERTORY THEATRE, THE. _By P. P. Howe._\n\n  THOMPSON. _By St. John Hankin and G. Calderon._\n\n\n  _Travel_\n\n  AUSTRALASIAN WANDER-YEAR, AN. _By H. M. Vaughan._\n\n  EGYPTIAN AESTHETICS. _By Rene Francis._\n\n  FOUNTAINS IN THE SAND. _By Norman Douglas._\n\n  NOOKS AND CORNERS OF OLD ENGLAND. _By Allan Fea._\n\n  OLD CALABRIA. _By Norman Douglas._\n\n  OLD ENGLISH HOUSES. _By Allan Fea._\n\n  PERFUMES OF ARABY. _By Harold Jacob._\n\n\n  _Martin Secker's Series of\n  Critical Studies_\n\n  ROBERT BRIDGES. _By F. & E. Brett Young._\n\n  SAMUEL BUTLER. _By Gilbert Cannan._\n\n  G. K. CHESTERTON. _By Julius West._\n\n  FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY. _By J. Middleton Murry._\n\n  GEORGE GISSING. _By Frank Swinnerton._\n\n  THOMAS HARDY. _By Lascelles Abercrombie._\n\n  HENRIK IBSEN. _By R. Ellis Roberts._\n\n  HENRY JAMES. _By Ford Madox Hueffer._\n\n  RUDYARD KIPLING. _By Cyril Falls._\n\n  MAURICE MAETERLINCK. _By Una Taylor._\n\n  GEORGE MEREDITH. _By Orlo Williams._\n\n  WILLIAM MORRIS. _By John Drinkwater._\n\n  WALTER PATER. _By Edward Thomas._\n\n  D. G. ROSSETTI. _By John Drinkwater._\n\n  BERNARD SHAW. _By P. P. Howe._\n\n  R. L. STEVENSON. _By Frank Swinnerton._\n\n  A. C. SWINBURNE. _By Edward Thomas._\n\n  J. M. SYNGE. _By P. P. Howe._\n\n  WALT WHITMAN. _By Basil de Selincourt._\n\n  W. B. YEATS. _By Forrest Reid._\n\n\n  _The Art and Craft of Letters_\n\n\n  BALLAD, THE. _By Frank Sidgwick._\n\n  COMEDY. _By John Palmer._\n\n  CRITICISM. _By P. P. Howe._\n\n  EPIC, THE. _By Lascelles Abercrombie._\n\n  ESSAY, THE. _By Orlo Williams._\n\n  HISTORY. _By R. H. Gretton._\n\n  LYRIC, THE. _By John Drinkwater._\n\n  PARODY. _By Christopher Stone._\n\n  SATIRE. _By Gilbert Cannan._\n\n  SHORT STORY, THE. _By Barry Pain._\n\n\n  _The Tales of Henry James_\n\n  ALTAR OF THE DEAD, THE.\n  ASPERN PAPERS, THE.\n  BEAST IN THE JUNGLE, THE.\n  COXON FUND, THE.\n  DAISY MILLER.\n  DEATH OF THE LION, THE.\n  FIGURE IN THE CARPET, THE.\n  GLASSES.\n  LESSON OF THE MASTER, THE.\n  PUPIL, THE.\n  REVERBERATOR, THE.\n  TURN OF THE SCREW, THE.\n\n\n  _Martin Secker's Series of\n  Two-Shilling Novels_\n\n  CARNIVAL. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  SINISTER STREET: VOL. I. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  THE PASSIONATE ELOPEMENT. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  THE SEA-HAWK. _By Rafael Sabatini._\n\n  SANINE. _By Michael Artzibashef._\n\n  FORTITUDE. _By Hugh Walpole._\n\n  THE LION'S SKIN. _By Rafael Sabatini._\n\n  WIDDERSHINS. _By Oliver Onions._\n\n  ONE KIND AND ANOTHER. _By Barry Pain._\n\n\n  _Fiction_\n\n  BANKRUPT, THE. _By Horace Horsnell._\n\n  BANNER OF THE BULL, THE. _By Rafael Sabatini._\n\n  BATTLES OF LIFE. _By Austin Philips._\n\n  BREAKING-POINT. _By Michael Artzibashef._\n\n  BURNT HOUSE, THE. _By Christopher Stone._\n\n  CARNIVAL. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  CASUALS OF THE SEA. _By William McFee._\n\n  CHASTE WIFE, THE. _By Frank Swinnerton._\n\n  COLLECTED TALES: VOL. I. _By Barry Pain._\n\n  COLLECTED TALES: VOL. II. _By Barry Pain._\n\n  COLUMBINE. _By Viola Meynell._\n\n  COMPLETE GENTLEMAN, THE. _By Bohun Lynch._\n\n  CREATED LEGEND, THE. _By Feodor Sologub._\n\n  DARK FOREST, THE. _By Hugh Walpole._\n\n  DARK TOWER, THE. _By F. Brett Young._\n\n  DEBIT ACCOUNT, THE. _By Oliver Onions._\n\n  DEEP SEA. _By F. Brett Young._\n\n  DIAL OF AHAZ, THE. _By H. M. Vaughan._\n\n  DUCHESS OF WREXE, THE. _By Hugh Walpole._\n\n  FOOL'S TRAGEDY, THE. _By A. Scott Craven._\n\n  FORTITUDE. _By Hugh Walpole._\n\n  GOLIGHTLYS, THE. _By Laurence North._\n\n  GUY AND PAULINE. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  IMPATIENT GRISELDA. _By Laurence North._\n\n  IMPERFECT BRANCH, THE. _By Richard Lluellyn._\n\n  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE. _By O. Onions._\n\n  INTRODUCING WILLIAM ALLISON. _By William Hewlett._\n\n  IRON AGE, THE. _By F. Brett Young._\n\n  KING'S MEN, THE. _By John Palmer._\n\n  LION'S SKIN, THE. _By Rafael Sabatini._\n\n  LITTLE DEMON, THE. _By Feodor Sologub._\n\n  LOT BARROW. _By Viola Meynell._\n\n  MARRIAGE OF QUIXOTE, THE.  _By Donald Armstrong._\n\n  MAKING MONEY. _By Owen Johnson._\n\n  MELEAGER. _By H. M. Vaughan._\n\n  MILLIONAIRE, THE. _By Michael Artzibashef._\n\n  MODERN LOVERS. _By Viola Meynell._\n\n  NARCISSUS. _By Viola Meynell._\n\n  NOCTURNE. _By Frank Swinnerton._\n\n  OLD HOUSE, THE. _By Feodor Sologub._\n\n  ONE KIND AND ANOTHER. _By Barry Pain._\n\n  PASSIONATE ELOPEMENT, THE. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  PETER PARAGON. _By John Palmer._\n\n  QUESTING BEAST, THE. _By Ivy Low._\n\n  RECORD OF A SILENT LIFE, THE. _By Anna Preston._\n\n  SALAMANDER, THE. _By Owen Johnson._\n\n  SANINE. _By Michael Artzibashef._\n\n  SEA HAWK, THE. _By Rafael Sabatini._\n\n  SECURITY. _By Ivor Brown._\n\n  SINISTER STREET. I. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  SINISTER STREET. II. _By Compton Mackenzie._\n\n  SNARE, THE. _By Rafael Sabatini._\n\n  SOUTH WIND. _By Norman Douglas._\n\n  STORY OF LOUIE, THE. _By Oliver Onions._\n\n  TALES OF THE REVOLUTION. _By M. Artzibashef._\n\n  TELLING THE TRUTH. _By William Hewlett._\n\n  TRUE DIMENSION, THE. _By Warrington Dawson._\n\n  UNCLE'S ADVICE. _By William Hewlett._\n\n  UNDERGROWTH. _By F. & E. Brett Young._\n\n  UNOFFICIAL. _By Bohun Lynch._\n\n  WIDDERSHINS. _By Oliver Onions._\n\n  YEARS OF PLENTY. _By Ivor Brown._\n\n\nPRINTED BY\nWM. BRENDON AND SON, LTD. PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND.","title":"The World in Chains: Some Aspects of War and Trade","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":37082}