THE COMMAND OF THE AIR.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—As a citizen of London, as a subject of a nation at peace with all the world, I protest against the insolent and vapid claim which some ill-advised persons seem inclined to make on behalf of our country to " the command of the air." I trust that someone speaking with more authority than I can do will promptly repudiate so monstrous an aim or assumption, whether literal or metaphorical, on behalf of our own country, as I hope it will be denounced and repudiated on behalf of other nations. The phrase alone is offensive to good taste, and for the actual claim on behalf of our own sea-girt island there would not be even the same justification that exists in regard to naval armament. The perils of the air (if there are any) need have no greater terrors for us than for any continental nation. Britain should no doubt "hold her own" in aerial navigation, but she need not claim to do more. It is lamentable enough that so splendid and useful a mechanical invention as the aeroplane should be degraded and prostituted to the meaner and homicidal purposes of war—as mean almost as the explosive bullet or the poisoned well—but when arrogant and senseless claims are made which can bare no other effect than to irritate our neighbours and to foment insensate international rivalry of excessive armaments, it is time for even an obscure citizen and subject to protest. Has our Government or the rulers of our National Church nothing to say on such a topic ?—I am, [If we had a nation trained to protect itself we might be able to agree with our correspondent. It is, however, one of the dangers that flow from our being an unarmed nation that we must think overmuch of the mechanical side of Home Defence. If we are to claim the liberty not to fight for our country, we must see to it that our mechanical safeguards are as perfect as possible.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
