BOOKS.

A NEUTRAL ON THE WAR.• Timm is probably not a single subject of King George V. who, if he were asked to give his opinion on the relative merits of absolutism and democracy, would not unhesitatingly cast his vote in favour of the latter of these two forms of government. There is also probably not a single thoughtful or impartial Briton, Canadian, or Australian who would not admit that the true defence of democracy consists more in dwelling upon the proved deficiencies of absolutism than on maintaining that anything like perfection can be obtained under democratic rule. The defects of democracy are, indeed, glaring and manifold. Never have they been brought into greater prominence than at present. They have assumed different forms in different countries. In France, they were manifested by a state of dangerous unpreparedness against a peril which Frenchmen, confident in the sincerity of their own peaceful intentions, had allowed themselves to underrate. In the United Kingdom, we have had to balance the extraordinary triumph gained by free institutions in welding a whole heterogeneous Empire together—a feat of which absolutism would have been wholly incapable—against the facts that we were not only less prepared than the French at the outbreak of the war, but that the national discipline, which was essential to ensure victory, was, in the first instance at all events, inadequate in many important respects to meet the crisis. In the United States, the weak points of democracy have been no less prominent, but they have shown themselves in a different manner. One of the inevitable consequences of popular government is that the destinies of the State may for a time be entrusted to rulers who, having been chosen in normal circumstances, suddenly find themselves obliged to deal with other circumstances of a wholly unexpected and abnormal character. When Mr. Wilson was elected to be the President of the United States, there was every reason to suppose that the ship of State, which was entrusted to his guidance, would only have to encounter such comparatively light breezes as might be expected from the treatment of the internal affairs of his own country, and of external affairs of no extraordinary importance. Instead of that, the captain of the vessel has found himself tossed hither and thither by a hurricane of a violence hitherto unprecedented in the history of the world.

Has he proved a daring pilot in this extremity ? Has he risen to the occasion ? Has he fully realized the gravity of the issues at stake ? Does he understand that not only the future of his own country, but that of democracy and of the moral well- being of the world, depend on the result of this war ? The most indulgent critic, after waiting patiently for symptoms which would have enabled him to reform his judgment, and which he would have gladly accepted, must now perforce answer all these questions with a decided negative. It is not necessary to assign President Wilson's undoubted shortcomings to a somewhat ignoble and opportunist desire to catch votes which would ensure his own renewal of office. A sufficient explanation is probably to be found in the fact that his very virtues have proved obstacles to his success in the domain of statesmanship. Great intellectual attainments and sound academic training were not the qualities most of all required to deal with a situation which called for strong resolution, a mind capable of grasping firmly the relative importance of events, and a full appreciation of the fact that the blessings of a temporary peace may be secured at too high a price. President Wilson had one of the grandest opportunities ever offered to a statesman. He failed to seize it. He has allowed all the best elements in the great nation over whose fortunes he temporarily presides to be exposed to that for which no material gain can compensate—a loss of self-respect. He has made democracy the laughing-stock of the absolutist GovernMents of the world, whose diplomatists

• Before, During, and After 1914. By Anton Fyettbm. London : William Ileinemann. 17a. ad. net.]

have hypnotized him with honeyed words, whilst their agents, more rightly interpreting the wishes of their masters, have continued to blow up American factories, slaughter peaceful American citizens on the high seas, and tear to shreds all those international treaties of which it has been the proud boast of the American democracy to pose as the foremost champion.

The sentiments evoked in the United 'Kingdom are somewhat more complex. In spite of the complete official separation

between the two countries, the average Englishman can never, be got to regard the Americans as foreigners. He looks upon,

them as his own kith and kin. He never expected the United States to join in the war unless some distinctly American interest, imperatively called for an appeal to arms. He was surprised;. but not deeply offended, when the opportunity was taken by President Wilson to raise a number of intricate legal questions which, in view of the enormous importance of other interests at stake, might well have been allowed to remain dormant.;

He knew that, at a time when America was herself struggling for her own national unity and existence, a large section of the British public had behaved somewhat shabbily. He was, therefore, to some extent conscience-stricken, and in his desire to make atonement for past errors he was very reluctant to indulge in severe criticism. But when he learnt that the President adjured his fellow-countrymen to construe neutrality into the denial of sympathy with a just cause, which touched the most vital points of civilization and democracy, his surprise deepened into a feeling very akin to shame and contempt. He felt like some member of an illustrious family who learns that a near relation, bearing his own honoured name, has conducted' himself in a manner calculated to attract the censure of all high- minded people. He felt ashamed of his kinship, and this sentiment predominated over any purely selfish view of the material help that he could have secured by active assistance from his kinsmen. The situation was saved by a section of the American Press, and by writers such as Professor Church, Mr. Abbott, and others, who convinced the British public that, whatever might be the official attitude of the United States Government, the heart of the American people was really with them. Had it not been for their intervention, it is possible that, in addition to the other calamitous con- sequences ensuing from the war, a deplorable estrangement might have taken place between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race.

A study of Dr. Nystrom's work may be earnestly commended to those who think, with President Wilson, that neutrality in action must necessarily be accompanied by apathy or indifference in thought and language. Dr. Nystrom is a distinguished Swede. Mr. Edmund Gosse has sketched his career in a brief preface which accompanies the translation of,

his work. " His intellectual activities have been multifarious.", He is a Positivist. He has devoted much of his time to the

study of that somewhat disappointing and unproductive science, craniology. He is also a comparative ethnologist, and he is able to show that his countryman, Dr. Sven Hedin, who he thinks, with some apparent reason, must be bereft of his senses, is talking nonsense when he speaks of the " racial treason " of the British to the Germanic people, for not only is the population of Great Britain highly composite, but the German nation contains a large admixture of Celtic and Slav blood. Prince Bismarck himself said " I am not a German ; I am a Prussian, a Wend." Dr. Nystrom has written a voluminous General History of Civilization. In the field of practical work, he initiated a far-reaching effort to raise the intellectual level of the Swedish working classes, and founded the Working Man's Institute at Stockholm. He pronounces himself, in the words of the French philosopher Bayle, to be " neither a Frenchman, nor a German, nor an Englishman, nor a Spaniard, &v.," but " a denizen of the world."* He is certainly not inspired by any anti-German prejudices. He does full justice to the attainments of German science, German research,

and German literature, especially that of the period when the mind of the German nation was represented by such men as

Kant, Goethe, and Schiller, and had not been poisoned by the pseudo-philosophy of later writers. More than this, he appears to entertain a warm admiration for the Great Frederick.

He thinks that that monarch would never have agreed to the second or third partitions of Poland, and he attaches more importance than is generally attached to the irreproachable moral sentiments which the greatest of the Hohenzolleras , . e_ In Ma and In other quotation. the Balks are In the 001024 7,

expressed on paper, and which he wholly ignored when the time came for him to act. Incidentally, it may be remarked that when Frederick the Great made to the philosopher Sulzer the observation to which Dr. Nystrom alludes, " Yon do not understand sufficiently this accursed race to which we belong," it must, in justice to the inhabitants of other countries, be remembered that this judgment on the whole human race was presumably founded mainly on the experience which the ruler of Prussia had gained in dealing with his own subjects.

Such, therefore, are Dr. Nystrom's title-deeds to speak on the subject now under discussion. They are more than respectable. They fully justify a claim on the part of Dr.

Nystrom to speak with the voice of that authority which is derived from profound learning and from the inspiration of high moral aims. What, therefore, has Dr. Nystrom to say ? He holds that to imagine that " individuals could be absolutely neutral in discussing one or other of the belligerent Powers in this, the vastest war in the history of man, is unthinkable " He, like most Swedes, and like, probably, most Americans, thinks that his country should take no active part in the war ; but, unlike President Wilson and those who agree with him, he is of opinion that " any one who conscientiously, and in the interests of truth and justice, studies the course of events, must be entitled to express his opinion, even if such expression of opinion involves severe criticism. If this were not so, silence in the name of neutrality would be synonymous with cowardice, want of character, or indifference." He gives his reasons for breaking silence. They are as follows :-

" The World War has almost entirely destroyed the sense of justice, and all codes of right and wrong were upset when brutal force became the dominant principle. The law of nations no longer exists, all passions have been unchained, hate prevents the exercise of reason, nations live that they may kill and plunge one another into distress and misery, the foremost inventions deal out death and destruction, humaneness is a mockery, truth is withheld and falsehood organized, the future is wrapt in gloom, the brotherhood of nations is made impossible, the brute in us is brought to the fore, and peace will be but a transient truce to be obeyed until the nations, with their souls black with hatred, once more ffy at each other's throats.".

Dr. Nystrom then enters into a very careful examination of the question where the responsibility for the creation of this deplorable state of things rests, and he comes to the only conclusion which is possible to any one who impartially examines all the facts and arguments. The entire responsibility rests with Germany and Austria, especially with the former Power. Dr. Nystrom brushes aside, as utterly unworthy of consideration, the flimsy excuses offered by the Germans on the ground that Russia, by a premature mobilization of her troops, rendered the war inevitable. " There is," he says, " no doubt that the German Imperial Government could have averted war had they ' wished to do so." The only German of note who has had the courage and honesty to speak the truth on the subject is Maximilian Harden, who has boldly said : " It is not against our own will that we have committed ourselves to this tremendous adventure. We have not been forced into it by surprise. We willed it we had to will it " ; and who also, when speaking of the semi-apologies offered for the violation of Belgian neutrality, said " Why all this talk ? It is brute force that dictates our laws. Has the stronger ever yielded to the impudent pretensions of the weaker ? "

The views expressed by this distinguished neutral should Surely carry some weight with other neutrals. Englishmen, at all events, will regard Dr. Nystrom's testimony as satisfactory evidence that the very active and very costly campaign of mendacity by which Germany has made such strenuous efforts to influence the opinion of the world, has not altogether met with the success which its authors hoped and anticipated. It is a significant fact that the study of international law has been suspended at the Copenhagen University. It is rightly considered that it would be " a waste of time " to study a science which has temporarily ceased to exist, and which cannot be revived until German Chauvinism, which, as Dr. Nystrom says, is " without parallel in the world's history," ceases to dominate Europe.

Dr. Nystrom has evidently fully grasped the vital importance of the issues at stake. He sees that in the words of Coleridge, the Germans have played such tricks with their own con- sciences that they " dare not look on their own vices." He understands that there can be no durable peace for Europe until the German bellicose spirit changes, and until the whole nation awakes from the nightmare which at present oppresses it. It may be doubted whether even yet the realities of the situation are fully appreciated by the whole of the British public. Otherwise, it is almost inconceivable that educated men, like the late Home Secretary and writers in the Nation, should still cavil at the very moderate proposals tardily advanced by the present Government in order to ensure the victory of