THE GAS QUESTION.
[To nu Earns 07 TE17 "8cxosre."l SIR,—I am in the habit of turning to your columns to read the final confirmatory word on "things that matter," but found your note in last Saturday's issue on the question of the use by way of retaliation by His Majesty's Army of asphyxia- ting gases scarcely so convincing as I could desire. Is it • matter of course that because "Germany has broken her pro- mise in this regard we are released from ours " ? Was the contract with Germany alone, or has the signature of the Powers created a rule of international law in the matter P If the latter, and if taking life by these means is unlawful killing, is there any protection (dehore the Grand Jury) for any soldier who is employed in the suggested retribution from an indict- ment for murder P The question is serious, and I contemplate with horror the notion of our enemies achieving a moral and spiritual victory over enemies whom they cannot coerce in fair warfare. You assure us farther, in support of this concession to barbarism, that a great military authority has solemnly averred that unless the English troops used gas they would be at "an enormous and unjustifiable disadvantage." Has not this been their position throughout? It was the thought of the stupendous sacrifices made in the face of "enormous and unjustifiable" odds that made it seem fitting that the adoption or rejection of this weapon should be left to the proved valour of the fighting line (as we bear it was) rather than to the imagination and instincts of politicians who stay at home. Consequently it is not wholly consolatory to learn that the " British and French Governments are agreed in this matter." We would gladly have learned the views of the King of the Belgians, whom, without disparagement to the Tear of Russia, the public voice allows to stand for foreign chivalry. To my mind, the ineptitude of a declaration of atrocities or "frightfulness " exceeds its impiety. If seriously undertaken, it must cheek recruiting, and the reduction of the standard to five feet one inch receives a wholly valid and unexpected justification.—I am, Sir, dui., The Norfolk Club, Norwich. D'Ancr Cowan&
Previous page
