English life, which are forced upon the nation by the facts of the war. There are other changes that are not so easy to describe the more subtle changes; changes in thought; changes in the way people look at religion; new views that people have of fundamental problems; and I should be acting unfairly if I represented to you that in England we were all of one mind, even during the war, on these questions. The war has not yet caused us to see all things alike. There is every phase of difference of opinion between us, and those differences especially develop when we attempt to think of the problems of the future, of the settlement of the national life after the war, and of international problems after the war. Of course, war time is not a time when a democracy flourishes. You cannot expect to find, in war time, the free expression of a democratic people -at least, if you expect it, you do not find it War does not work out like that; but although public opinion may not be encouraged, may even be suppressed, as it always is in every belligerent country during war, it yet exists. It is being made. It is undergoing profound changes; and one day it will find full expression. Let me give you one example. The governments of all the belligerent allied countries have met together, through their representatives, to consider their national policies after the war from the standpoint of the trade of each nation, and the program has been drawn up which is known as the Economic Pact of Paris. That policy foreshadows a change, so far as England is concerned, in her system of free trade. Therefore, you might easily be deceived into thinking that England had decided to give up free trade at the end of the war. I do not think that is true. I think you would find that before any departure from free trade was agreed to by the English nation, there would be a long controversy indeed, and I am doubtful if free trade would be departed from. I would remind you that the great majority of the English nation before the war was in favour of her historic policy of free trade, and there has been no automatic surrender of those beliefs during the war, as will be shown, I think, at the end of the war; and this question is especially interesting

and important because it leads on to what I want to say in conclusion-the relation of the national problems in England to international problems.

This question of free trade for England, while I suppose it is first a national question, is also an international question, because there are many of us who believe that if, at the settlement, we should, in order to punish our present enemies, build up a tariff wall against the rest of the world, it would tend to sever us not only from our present enemies, but also from the great neutral nations of the world, and there is in England, a great body of progressive and enlightened opinion, which still holds to the faith that it expressed before the war; that faith I must describe as the international faith. That great body of opinion has recently been given expression to by Lord Bryce, a man who, I am sure, is known and trusted in America. Lord Bryce has reminded my countrymen that the settlement of this war must not be founded upon the desire for revenge, or upon passion and hatred. He has reminded my countrymen that the problem before us as a nation at the end of the war is how to make this the last war, how to build up not only the national life, but the international life, and how to remove forever the scourge of war from the menace of mankind; and I entirely agree, if I may say so, that that is the problem which will be before us at the end of the war. We shall have failed if, in the settlement that we hope to bring about, we should only perpetuate this present war. Let me add this with regard to the attitude of America. I desire to say this because, during the short time that I have been in America, I have so often been asked whether it is not true that throughout England there are feelings of intense anger, disappointment, and irritation at the attitude of the United States of America. The question is so frequently asked me that I reluctantly believe that the belief must be generally held in America. I want to say, quite candidly, that I believe that view to be quite untrue, quite lacking in any substantial basis. It is true that we have, in England, in the days of war as in the days of peace, a sensational section of the press.

That was its character in the days of peace, and it has not altered its character in the days of war. It is a great minority of the press, and it does not represent any section of the British public. Throughout the British nation, there is, I sincerely believe, a feeling of the deepest respect and affection for the American nation. There is, I believe, the desire to grow closer and closer in their relationship with the American people. It is an ideal that I hope will one day be achieved, that the English-speaking people will come closer together; and when I say that, I am not thinking of an alliance offensive to other nations; I am simple speaking of the English and American nations using their great inheritance in order to secure the peace of the world. I remember with gratitude that during the war the one great constructive suggestion made in any country for the help of the belligerent world has been in America-the proposal of the league of nations to secure the peace of the world. I do not inquite whether that in itself is adequate, and I do not say it is not open to many criticisms, but I do say that it has the great value of being a constructive proposal, that it knows the end it seeks to achieve, and it makes at least tentative suggestions to secure that end. I say that America, by giving such constructive proposals, is doing a great service to the world, and that what the whole world now wants is the wisdom of America, the thought of America, expressed in the form of constructive suggestion. I believe, if I may say so with great humility, that there is before the American nation today an opportunity that comes not once in the history of a nation, but only once, perhaps, in the history of a world. It is no less than the opportunity that America has, from her position of unmistakable moral power and from her position of detachment from the war now raging, to give the belligerent world the fruits of her own wisdom, not only to help the belligerent world, it may be, to peace in this struggle, but to help the whole world, belligerent and neutral alike, so to organize the international life, so to set up final courts of arbitration, so to assist in the change of outlook in the nations of the world, as to make war forever

impossible and secure the international brotherhood of the world, and help forward the dawn of that day,—I wish that we could feel that we saw it today above the hill tops of time, when men shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and learn war no more.

PRESIDENT WILSON'S LACK OF POLICY IN

MEXICO

[The author of this article is an American of high standing and reputation who has had intimate knowledge of Mexican conditions from the days of Diaz to the present. Due to his Mexican connections it seems unwise to have his name appear at this time.-EDITORS.]

Strictly speaking President Wilson has had no definite constructive Mexican policy. His whole course in dealing with Mexico has been characterized by lack of policy, by vacillation, inconsistency and harmful meddling. Apparently oblivious to the gravity of the situation, he has preferred to drift on the current of events, shifting his position to meet the changing needs of the hour and to "trust to luck" that all might turn out well, rather than adopt a settled policy based upon a full comprehension of the facts of the situation. Deliberately he has closed his eyes to the facts or, what is worse, has sought to bend those facts that have been thrust upon him by the development of events to fit a preconceived theory. But the chief vice of his Mexican performance lies in the fact that he has talked one way and acted another. It is this practice that has caused friends to doubt his sincerity and strangers to suspect him of duplicity and double dealing. Protesting all the while that the affairs of Mexico were not our business or the business of any other foreign power, and constantly asserting that he would not interfere in the affairs of that country or permit anyone else to interfere, he has in fact and in truth been interfering continuously since he entered the presidency, and to no useful purpose. The records show this. In his famous Indianapolis speech, in which he defined his attitude towards Mexico, he said:

It is none of my business, and none of your business, how long they (the Mexicans) take in determining who shall be their governors or what their government shall be. It is none of your business, and none of my business, how they go about the busi