A QUESTION OF BUSINESS.
IT is very clear that we are not a nation of shopkeepers. We are far too much ashamed of the shop and too ignorant of its ways. In the first number of the new monthly, the St. George's Review—which is the organ of that excellent body the National Defence Association, and which, quite apart from this claim, deserves success on its literary merits alone—Sir George Taubman Goldie contributes a striking article entitled "Lest We Forget." In it he reminds his countrymen of a few • simple facts. The first of these is that international morality is still rudimentary. It is worth insisting on this, for it is the basis of all arguments for adequate defence. We are far from denying the reality of international law and its sanctions, but we cannot speak of international morality in the same sense as we speak of private morality. As soon as we leave the individual for the crowd, morality acquiws a different signification. In private life we condemn the man who takes advantage of another's weakness, yet we should hesitate to blame the firm which profits by the weakness of its rivals so long as it profits honourably. When we pass from the smaller cor- porate .unit to the larger, from the company to the nation, we get still further from the private conception of morality. The Christian graces of charity, unselfish- ness, and long-suffering cannot be said to exist at all. If we see a man walking into a bog, we think it our duty to warn him ; but if we see a rival Government annexing barren territories in the belief that they will make good colonies, we do not step forward to warn it. We should not be listened to, and the most ardent moralist in politics would not carry his conscientiousness so far. There is an international morality of a kind, but it is the law rather than the gospel. This being so, there can be no mercy for weakness. If a State becomes decrepit, she will become the prey of the stronger. It is the law in ordinary com- mercial life, and much more is it the law among the larger human units which we call nations. And yet there are people whci imagine, because a number of Englishmen are well disposed to France, or because the newspaper editors of Berlin fête a number of their English etaleagues, that lasting friendship has begun, and that defensive preparations can be suspended. The notion is pure moon- shine. Alliances between nations may be gilded with sentiment and ornamented with personal friendships, but they remain fundamentally a matter of self-interest. Their continuance is not a question of ethics, but a question of business. The best way for a State to be respected and liked is for it to be sufficiently strong to suggest to no neighbour the possibility of successful encroachments. It is suspicion which makes trouble and fosters hatreds, and suspicion has always some ground to rest upon. A cripple in the family of nations is a perpetual danger. centre, for he holds out temptations to all the rest. Once upon a time an Irish landlord was shot at, and the prisoner's defence was that he was exposed to unfair temptation, seeing that the landlord always went unarmed. It may be a bad defence in private life, but it is a sound plea between nations.
Another fact which Sir George Goldie recalls to the memory of his countrymen is that a few years ago we were only saved by happy accident from suffering the penalty of weakness and unpreparedness. The heavy demands for South Africa reduced both our Indian Army and the garrisons of our fortresses to a strength far below what has been believed to be necessary for safety. Great Britain was left with insufficient field guns. The immense dis- tance of sea over which our troops had to be carried to the scene of war made heavy demands upon the Navy for pro- tection. On the Continent our neighbours were very willing to strike. At that time we were without allies, and the twenty years which had elapsed since our occupation of Egypt had seen an extraordinary growth of jealousy and mistrust. After Colenso nothing would have been more popular both in France and Germany than the presentation along with Russia of a Joint Note to Britain calling upon her to stop the war. It is no secret that the Govern- ments of these countries were strongly pressed to take this step. If the Boers had invaded Cape Colony in sufficient force to raise a general rebellion among the Dutch there, or if, as Sir George Goldie suggests, they had carried Ladysmith by assault, in all probability the Note would have been presented. There could only have been one result. The answer would have been the same as that to the demand of the Triple Alliance during the war with America. We should have refused indignantly, and plunged into a European war. Another moment of danger came later when the Russian fleet attacked the Grimsby fishing-boats. A war on that issue would have undoubtedly had the assent of the country, and only the good sense of the Government kept us out of it. We must accept this characteristic of our people,—a readiness to resent insults without for a moment counting the cost. We must accept it, and provide against it.
To-day we have a thorough understanding with France and an Agreement with Russia which removes all immediate cause of friction ; and the ill-feeling between Germany and ourselves happily shows a tendency to decline. We are more popular on the Continent than we have been for many years, and the reason of that popularity is that we are more respected. The South African War forced us to reconsider our position, and Sir George Goldie is undoubtedly right in attributing the success of our pacific diplomacy to the increase in our fighting power, both naval and military. But the point to remember is that there is no security against a repetition of the crisis of 1899. Or, rather, there is one security, and one only. We must see that the same unpreparedness, the same grounds for unpopularity, which existed in 1899 are not repeated. We cannot afford to oscillate between excessive parsimony and negligence in times of fancied security, and extravagant expenditure and feverish preparations in moments of anxiety. The cause for anxiety is always there. Security can never be the result of sudden spurts of effort, but only of ceaseless and continuous preparation. As a mere matter of economy, it is less costly to give brains and a reasonable amount of money to preparation at all times than to pour out money, like water once every decade or so. In the one case we get value for our 'outlay ; in the other. we assuredly do not.
The last fact of which Sir George Goldie reminds us is that invasion, though happily improbable, is not im- possible, and that no scheme of defence is- adequate which does not recognise this contingency. We quote his words :---
"There is certainly no general consensus of high naval authority that, if our fleet were occupied in active operations against a coalition of three or even two naval Powers, it could still absolutely guarantee us against the landing on our shores --during some absence abroad of our Regular Army or 'Expedi- tionary -Force '—of a hundred thousand invaders from ports extending from Hamburg to Brest; for joint action by Germany and France would probably commence by their occupation of
Holland and Belgium In such circumstances, all the arguments which have been adduced as to the difficulty of sufficient tonnage for 100,000 men being suddenly commandeered, and as to our Navy having to watch a very limited line of the enemy's coast, would be irrelevant. And I would urge, inci- dentally, that even if the impossibility of such an invasion could be mathematically demonstrated, most people do not reason on those lines, and that a widespread panic would destroy wealth equivalent to 30, 40, or even 50 years' purchase of the difference of the annual cost of a well-organised and a badly organised military system."
Before we can have the respect which means security we must have a force in these islands organised solely for defence, and capable of being raised at the shortest notice. In a word, we must have our manhood trained to arms. Proposals for a scheme of universal and compulsory military training meet with opposition mainly from the professed apostles of international peace and the professed advocates of national economy. The answer to the latter is that it is cheaper to pay a little in time rather than a great deal when it is too late. We must consider the character of the nation, and remember that nothing will prevent it from spending wildly when it is really anxious. As for the .first, we are of the opinion of the Irish prisoner we have already quoted. The best way to ensure peace is to remove from our neighbours' path the temptation to attack us.
Previous page
