"EUROPE'S OPTICAL ILLUSION." pro Tue EDITOR Or THE " SriCTATOR.1

Sra,—In your issue of April 30th, just brought to my notice,

you devote a whole page to my little book, "Europe's Optical Illusion." Had your reviewer confined himself to an expression of opinion, however hostile, I would not have ventured to crave the indulgence of a few lines in reply. As, however, he pro- fesses to indicate the scope and purpose of the book, and in so doing succeeds in reversing completely the whole meaning of much that I say, and makes me appear to say one thing when I really say the exact opposite, may I not fairly claim some right of relay P The article is entitled "The Folly of Patriotism," implying that the book is a general attack upon that sentiment. The article continues :—

" Mr. Angell's main point is that the advantages customarily associated with national independence and security have no exist- ence outside the popular imagination He holds that Englishmen would be equally happy if they were under German rule, and that Germans would be equally happy if they were under English rule. It is irrational, therefore, to take any measures for perpetuating the existing European order, since only a senti-

mentalist can set any value on its maintenance Probably in private life Mr. Angell is less consistent and less inclined to preach the burglar's gospel that to the wise man means and tunes are but two names for the same thing. If he is anxious to make converts, he will do well to apply his reasoning to subjects that come nearer home, and convince the average man that marriage and private property are as much illusions as patriotism. If sentiment is to be banished from politics, it cannot reasonably be retained in morals."

How far the foregoing is a correct description of the scope and character of the book under review may be gathered from the following statement of fact. My book does not attack the sentiment of patriotism (unless a criticism of the duellist's conception of dignity be considered as such) ; it simply does

not deal with it, as being outside the limits of the main thesis. I do not hold, and there is not one line in my book to

which your reviewer can point as justifying such a conclusion,

that Englishmen would be equally happy if they were under German rule. I do not conclude that it is irrational to take measures for perpetuating the existing European order. I do not "expose the folly of self-defence in nations." I do not object to spending money on armaments at this juncture.

On the contrary, I am particularly emphatic in declaring that while the present philosophy is what it is we are bound to maintain our relative position with other Powers. I admit that as long as there is danger, as I believe there is, from

German aggression, we must arm. I do not preach a burglar's gospel, that ensues and tunm, are the same thing, and the whole tendency of my book is the exact reverse : it is to show that the burglar's gospel—which is the gospel of statecraft as it now stands—is no longer possible among nations, and that the difference between melon and Num

must necessarily, as society gains in complication, be given a

stricter observance than it has ever heretofore been given in history. I do not urge that sentiment should be banished

from politics, if by sentiment is meant the common morality that guides us in our treatment of marriage and of private property. The whole tone of my book is to urge with all possible emphasis the exact reverse of such a doctrine : to urge that the morality which has been by our necessities developed in the society of individuals must also be applied to the society of nations as that society becomes by virtue of our development more interdependent.

I have only taken a small portion of your reviewer's article (which runs to a whole page), and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that nearly all of it is as untrue and as much a distortion of what I really say as the passage from which I have quoted. What I do attempt to make plain is that the necessity for defence measures (which I completely recognise and emphatically counsel) implies on the part of some one a motive for aggression. and that the motive arises from the (at present) universal belief in the economic advantages accruing from successful conquest.

I challenged this universal axiom of statecraft, and attempted to show that the mechanical development of the last thirty or forty years, especially in the means of com- munication, had given rise to certain economic phenomena— of which reacting Bourses and a synchronised Bank-rate the world over are perhaps the most characteristic—which render modern wealth and trade intangible in the sense that they cannot be seized or interfered with to the advantage of a military aggressor, the moral being, not that self-defence is out of date, but that aggression is, and that when aggression ceases self-defence will be no longer necessary. I urged therefore that in these little-recognised truths might possibly be found a way out of the armament impasse ; that if the accepted motive for aggression could be shown to have no solid basis the tension in Europe would be immensely relieved, and the risk of attack become immeasurably less by reason of the slackening of the motive for aggression. I asked whether this series of economic facts—so little :realised by the average politician in Europe, and yet so familiar to at least a few of the ablest financiers—did not go far to change the axioms of statecraft, and I urged reconsideration of such in the light of these facts.

Your reviewer, instead of dealing with the questions thus raised, accuses me of " attacking patriotism," of arguing that "Englishmen would be equally happy under German rule," and much nonsense of the same sort for which there is not a shadow of justification. Is this serious criticism ? Is it worthy of the Spectator 1—I am, Sir, &a., [Our reviewer writes to us as follows :—" If Mr. Angell's book had given me the same impression as that which I gain from his letter, I should have reviewed it in a different spirit. I can only plead that I wrote under the impression which the book actually made on me. In reply to his 'statement of fact,' I must ask your leave to make the following cor- rections :—(1) Instead of saying that, on Mr. Angell's show- ing, Englishmen would be equally happy' under German rule, I ought to have said that they would be equally well off. But on his doctrine that material well-being is the very highest' aim of a politician, the two terms seem to me inter- changeable. (2) The existing European order' rests on the supposed economic value of political force. In opposition to this Mr. Angell maintains 'the economic futility of political force.' To take measures for perpetuating an order founded on a futility does seem to me irrationaL' (3) I never said that Mr. Angell objects to spending money on armaments while the present philosophy is what it is? (4) The stress laid in the book on the economic folly of patriotism, as commonly understood, does seem to me to suggest that 'sentiment should be banished from politics.' But I admit that this was only an inference, though, as I still think, a fair inference. (5) I apologise for the words the burglar's gospel.' They have the fault incident to rhetorical phrases of being more telling than exact."—Eu. Spectator.]