" VIGILANS SED AEQUITS." implied. He wrote his articles without

passion, and, indeed, con- fessed himself a profound admirer of the larger part of German intellectual activity. He wrote them because he always had the

supreme merit of making his politics fit the facts. As a scholarly and sternly accurate thinker, he had a horror of any policy—however much he might wish to agree with it—which was first and foremost a prepossession, and merely took toll arbitrarily of such facts as happened to square with it. He

was a convinced and enthusiastic Liberal, but on the subject of Germany he parted company from many of his Liberal

friends becauie he perceived in them the fatal capacity to be blinded by any German eyewash that was concocted for their use. He was as much in love with peace as they, but he knew

Germans and German literature too well to ignore the real danger of the professorial campaign. We must say- a word

here about his career, as he was surely a -very noble example

of a man who preferred the truth before all things. He was a son of Thomas Arnold and a grandson of Arnold of Rugby.

Born in 18.52, he was educated at the Oratory School at Birmingham, at Rugby, and at University College, Oxford. At Oxford he won the Arnold Prize with his essay on

"Roman Provincial Administration," which is known to every serious researcher in that field of history—a work about to be republished, which will before long, we

trust, be reviewed in these columns. For seventeen years he was a journalist on the staff of the Manchester Guardian, and through all that period he was affectionately looked up to as a master by every younger man who came under the spell of his intellect and his devouring interest in life. But he was never only a journalist. Ile kept at his study of the subject he had made his own—Roman provincial administration—adding continually to his mass of notes. Nothing new escaped him. To read the investigations of German scholars was one of his recreations, if it be true that recreation may be found in change of work. Such was the mind which discovered and annotated in thorough scholarly fashion the outpourings of the German school of pugnacity.

His articles for the Spectator were written with extraordinary courage while he was suffering from a painful and fatal illness.

In the preface to his book Arnold reminded his readers of Bybee saying : " What the professors reasoned out, that Bismarck achieved." He pronounced Treitachke to be the

"chosen exemplar" of the militarists. Of this man whom General von Bernhardi has called " the supreme educator of our nation," and Moulin-Eckart " that fiery herald of our new Empire," Arnold wrote:— "He devoted all the resources of a mordant rhetoric, a pitiless invective, and a vitriolic ridicule to making Britain odious and contemptible in the eyes of the generation which heard him with enthusiasm in the class-room and read his books as a gospel. His influence on his generation was that of a Macaulay, a Fronde, and a Freeman rolled into one, and perhaps Mr. Balfour would find the readiest answer to his problem in a reading of the works of the man whose final message to his countrymen was that `the modern world will no longer tolerate a quite rotten state of things, and I hope to live to see the collapse of the British maritime supremacy:" Arnold pointed out how eagerly the professorial diatribes made use of the German Navy Act of 1898. Here was the pretext for an Anglophobe campaign, because the inferiority of Germany at sea reminded Germans of the lengthy British career of mercantile success. Their logical habit forbade

them to think that the rise of the British Empire was in a large measure the result of a haphazard passion for individual adventure. They saw a. sinister and overbear- ing purpose at work, and they discovered their justifi-

cation in Seeley's Expansion of England, as might easily happen to prejudiced or careless readers. Arnold

gives the exact words in which the professors—name and reference stated in every case—argued that the position of Britain in Egypt ought to be rendered untenable.

Schiemaun, for example, said that the British deltide in Egypt could be brought about by an alliance with Russia and France. What Arnold called the most truculent of all professorial tracts, Germania Triumphans, actually proposed that when Germany had freed Egypt of Britain, Turkey should be restored. "Imagine," says Arnold, "the state of mind of an educated European who seriously proposes to replace the Turkish yoke on a people which had escaped from it !" Yet the German Emperor himself is at this moment living up to the spirit of Germania Triumphans. Sea-power was to be the means of the British overthrow everywhere. Schmoller is quoted as describing the maritime domination of the future as the " most considerable political, economic, and ' cultural' fact of the twentieth century."

But the majority of the professors did not dream of an alliance with Russia even for the purpose of wrecking Britain in Egypt. Russia was, indeed, to many of them the chief bogy. The author of Grossdeutschland and Mittelcuropa is quoted as saying that "a great war with Russia may be possible, even necessary." Britain, Russia, and the United States, in this professorial credo, were all enemies to be conquered, no doubt in turn and as opportunity served. "A good shove," wrote Dehn, "and the ill-joined mosaic jof the British Empire] falls into ruins. To such a catastrophe

the provocative policy of England is leading." Rathgen wrote more vaguely but to the same purpose : "In 1600 the world was divided between Spaniards and Portuguese till the Netherlands, France, and above all England divided it anew. What has happened once may happen again."

In 1903 the United States, as we have said, was an object of German enmity. A dove-like process has since succeeded the open hostility. But it is worth while to remember the kind of thing that was said about the United States only

a few years ago, as it might be too easily said again in fresh circumstances :— " The writers I have so far quoted were clearly trembling on the verge of open defiance of the Monroe Doctrine, but it was not thought prudent to cross the line. Another publication of the Pan-German Union in which the line is crossed, and a strong appeal is made to Germany not merely to ignore the Monroe Doctrine, but to defy it is by Dr. W. Wintzer, and is entitled Die Deuisehen im tropischen Amerika. As this plain-spoken gentleman evidently expresses what many Germans feel, a few extracts from his concluding chapter on Germany and the Future of Tropical America' may be in place. After repeating the stock German argument that the moral core of the Monroe Doctrine vanished on the day when the document concerning the annexation of the Philippines was signed by McKinley,' ho goes on to say that the United States thereby gave us the right to confront this Greater-American doctrine with a Greater-German one—namely, that European, and among them German, interests exist also in South America, in case we have the power to assert them.' He insists on the comparatively slight importance of the United States in South America. . . . Germany, he argues, needs room for her rapid growth of population (800,000 yearly), and 'cannot allow herself to be simply dispossessed of her inheritance in one of the most thinly peopled and richest quarters of the globe—South America.' Equality of treatment with the United States in South America, that is the theory which we, both on principle and as occasion serves, must oppose to the Monroe Doctrine, and which, too, should the moment come, we must defend by force.'" This " plain-spoken gentleman " ends up by saying that the " American order of Hands off !' in South America must be answered in the negative." We must give one more quotation about the United States, as the German campaign has already almost passed out of memory a— "Two of the Pan-German prophets of the future, Germania Triumphans and Dr. Eisenhart, represent Germany as fighting against both Britain and the United States, but fighting against them separately. In Germania Trine:phases the United States are first attacked and defeated by both sea and land and Britain is represented as chuckle-headed enough and base enough to look on and do nothing. Then comes Britain's turn. The only difference in Dr. Eisenhart's vaticination of the future is that Germany takes Britain first, and the United States look on. Britain is disposed of, and now,' says the prophet., it was time to reckon with America.' Not even these haff-sane Pan- Germans contemplate the possibility of dealing with Britain and the United States together.'

We have said enough to prove that Arnold, with charac- teristic insight and pluck, did his duty in warning his country- men. He knew that all this talk could not pass away without result. He knew that it meant, in fact, a great deal. He regarded the prospect with grave apprehension because he never forgot Mme. de Steers saying that " thinking calms men of other nations ; it inflames the German."