the other autocratic governments (including Russia in the past) have criminally oppressed, rather than enlightened politically and otherwise. For instance, the England of 1917 is not responsible for a former England's crimes against Ireland. Since 1911 England has offered her "home rule," but civil differences and strife in Ireland would not have it so. It is all an Irish question now, not an English question, and the factions in Ireland are wholly responsible for its fall. England would gladly be rid of the thing altogether. It is what it has always largely been,—a religious question, a strife between Catholics and Protestants, of the Protestant Ulster counties and the greater Ireland, which is overwhelmingly Catholic. That is not the only difficulty at present, but it is by far the most important one. Ireland certainly ought to accept Home Rule, as England now offers it, rather than hold out for independence, as the radicals and lawless element are doing. Ireland alone is too weak to protect herself. She has not the wealth nor power to maintain an army and a navy, to guard an independent status, and without these she would be a prey to any power that might seek to enthrall her. The Germans are beside the mark when they demand that England give up Ireland, India, South Africa and Egypt,—all of which are as democratically and self-governed as their people will acceptbefore they demand that Germany restore Belgium, Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, and the recently ravished Balkan States and Russia—all of which were exploited, and still are, solely for the Teutonic race's benefit, not their own. Those nations and parts of nations, however, that are oppressed by foreign rulers and governments, such as Poland, Bohemia, Hungary (largely), the various Balkan peoples within the Dual Monarchy and the Italians in the Trentino and Triest regions-which once were free peoples, or joined to their own nationalities, must be restored, to work out the destiny of their own nationalities under democratic forms of government, if Europe is to have peace in the future.

Of the weaker and less distinct types, such as Finland and several of the African and other colonial possessions, perhaps autonomy, or a gradual growth in self-government is best. The conditions seem to warrant this solution, even in the case of the Philippine islanders. To give them their independence in the very near future, with their ignorance of, and inexperience in self-government, is mere folly, and would leave them the prey of the ambitious despoiler. It would be more charitable, if not more honorable, to sell them outright, to the highest bidder, than thus to cast them adrift.

Again, the difference we would point out is this; when subject peoples are in the hands of liberal democratic governments they are relatively safe; but wherever they are under autocratic rulers, they are continually in danger. History has abundantly proved the maxim, "Put not your trust in kings."

We have already noted that, under pretense of defending its flag, its interest or its citizens, many a nation has taken advantage of the occasion to establish itself and extend its power gradually, over less able or less fortunate countries. These things have been so carried out at times that it has been impossible to chastise the aggressor, or prevent them. But happily, that age is passing. The latest example of the above cause, previous to the present war, was Italy, in her war with Turkey for North African possessions, just before the outbreak of the first Balkan war, a few years ago. Yet, there are those who justify this type of war on the ground that it is necessary, as in the case of Hindus, Africans, etc., to make them subjects first, in order to transform them for the better afterwards. But at best, this is a very doubtful position to take, and is a mere excuse for war. The question is, does the end justify the means?

For wars they have waged in the past on pretext chiefly, and not for sufficient cause, all the great nations of Europe are paying dearly today. England, for example, is suffering and paying the penalty in this war for troubles she engen

dered and wars she helped to promote in her own selfish interests as late as the nineteenth century. The toll of 100,000 brave men in the Dardanelles campaign was (in large part at least) the price she paid for upholding Turkey, “the Sick Man of Europe," a couple of generations ago. For less than fifty years ago England was still in much the same position that Germany was in 1914, with motives very similar (under Disraeli) both with regard to her international policies and her allies. But England's democracy, the voice of her people, has saved her in the present generation from the condemnation that the world heaps upon Germany. Likewise, Germany can be saved from this condemnation in the future only, when democracy there, as in England, comes to her rescue. Moreover, one of the certain results of this war for Germany, whether it come soon, before the present war is over, or after years of internal struggle, will be the triumph of democracy over the Kaiser, the haughty Crown Prince and the autocratic princes and governments of the several States of the Empire. We should not be surprised also, to see Austria-Hungary dismembered, its various peoples reverting to the nationalities to which they belong. The Czech movement in Bohemia shows the drift of affairs in that polyglot empire.

This spirit of democracy,—of individual and social justice is responsible for the cooperation among the liberal governments that is to win the fight of the people of the earth for freedom. As we said in our introductory article of the present series, this is the culmination of the Political Revolution, and is the greatest and most glorious development of the modern age. The reactionary powers of Europe have far underrated this great movement, and hence have miscalculated its strength and effect, all through the past decade and the present war. Similarly, many of us have little realized the magnitude and meaning of this great liberal wave in the present generation. On this fact Mr. John B. Winslow, chief justice of the Supreme Court of

Wisconsin, has the following to say, "The future historian will find many things of surpassing interest when he comes to review the opening decades of the twentieth century, but he will find nothing more interesting or significant than the great wave of democracy which is now sweeping over the earth. . . . This remarkable world movement must be apparent to the most superficial present day observer of the signs of the times. Let any such observer take the world's map and put his finger where he will, he will find some phase of it. In Great Britain it takes the form of nullifying the powers of the House of Lords and curbing the privileges of birth; in France and Germany it appears in the garb of socialism; in China a republic supplants the rule of the Manchu dynasty, and in other countries it appears in various movements, all directed with greater or less wisdom to the wiping out of one form or another of privilege. . . . In our own country the democratic drift is, perhaps, more marked than anywhere else. .. Unless every sign fails, we shall have democracies . . before many years such as the world has never seen on any scale before; at least, we shall experiment with them." Greater weight attaches to this statement of Judge Winslow from the fact that it was made before democracy over the world made itself so potently felt in the present conflict.

We can better understand the illusions of the German people and their ignorance of the true science of government (an ignorance or incapacity which many of their own statesmen have avowed) when we note the character of their leaders, no matter how great statesmen they may have been. The people of the whole empire practically have been nurtured politically on illusions, false principles and pretexts, not on principles of justice in State and world affairs. Frederick the Great furnishes a case in point. In his memoirs he makes this statement: "My troops being always ready to act, my treasury well filled, the vivacity of my character, my ambition, the desire to have myself spoken of,—were the

reasons that I went to war with Marie Therese,”—i. e., when he took the Austrian province of Silesia away from her by force and involved all Europe in war. Many German militarists, both in the army and the navy, several great German authors of political science texts, as well as responsible heads of the great commercial concerns,-have persistently held forth this same soulless principle to the German nation. These things are perhaps too well known to need specific instances given here. It is true that other European governments acted upon quite similar theories a century ago; but that the German Kaiser and government still cling to it, is their peculiar crime in our day. Napoleon Bonaparte, after his campaign of 1812, made this remark concerning his own aggressiveness: "Alexander (of Russia) and myself were like two cocks, ready to go into battle without knowing why" a statement which was false as to Napoleon's designs-but which nevertheless acknowledges that neither sovereign had just cause for precipitating that terrible year of conflict. Ambition, wholly selfish, was the real cause, of course. Napoleon's desire was that all kings might assist at his final imperial coronation. He took the worldconqueror, Alexander the Great, as his model. And today, the German Crown Prince, it seems, is not so far removed from the same folly as we were content to believe a couple of years ago. That the ambition of monarchs and leaders no longer plays the part in war that it once did, however, is a distinct step in the progress of the people's rule.

As a final word let me repeat: the important differences between fundamental causes of war, and the immediate causes and pretexts cannot be too strongly emphasized. The writer doubts if the present generation will bring elimination of the fundamental causes. A great deal, on the other hand, may be done to eradicate the immediate causes and pretexts. Secretary Bryan did a noble thing along this line, in securing the twenty-odd arbitration treaties between the United States and other countries, to prevent wars until at least a