was progressing slowly to higher things. The triumph of pressure would sweep it all away and leave mankind to struggle helpless in the morass. That is why since this war began I have known but one political aim; and for it I have fought with a single eye-that is the rescue of mankind from the most overwhelming catastrophe that has ever yet menaced its well-being.

Extracts from the Speech of Former Premier Asquith in the House of Commons, December 19, 19161

I think what I have said is sufficient to show that the use we have made of the methods open to us-naval, military, and economichas not been ineffectual, and if further proof were required it is to be found in the so-called peace proposals which have been somewhat clumsily projected into space from Berlin. It is true that these proposals are wrapped up in the familiar dialect of Prussian arrogance, but how comes it that a nation which, after two years of war, professes itself conscious of military superiority and confident of ultimate victory should begin to whisper, nay, not to whisper, but to shout so that all the world can hear it, the word "peace"? Is it a sudden access of chivalry? Why and when has the German Chancellor become so acutely sensitive to what he calls the dictates of humanity? No; without being uncharitable we may well look elsewhere for the origin of this pronouncement. It is born of military and economic necessity. When I moved the last Vote of Credit I said there was no one among us who did not yearn for peace, but that it must be an honourable and not a shamefaced peace; it must be a peace that promised to be durable and not a patched-up and precarious compromise; it must be a peace which achieved the purpose for which we entered on the war. Such a peace we would gladly accept. Anything short of it we were bound to repudiate by every obligation of honour, and above all by the debt we owe to those, and especially to the young, who have given their lives for what they and we believed to be a worthy cause. Since I spoke two months ago their ranks have been sadly and steadily reinforced. I should like to refer in passing for a moment to one of them, a friend and colleague of mine, Lord Lucas. Apart from the advantages of birth and fortune he was a man of singularly winning personality, fine intelligence, and with the strongest sense of public duty. He worked inconspicuously but hard in the early days of the Territorial Army. He served for some years at the War Office and afterwards became a member of the Cabinet. At the time of the

The Morning Post, London, December 20, 1916.

Coalition he stood aside without a murmur and volunteered straight away for the Royal Flying Corps. Now he has met his death in a gallant reconnoitering raid over the German lines. He was not, I think, more than forty. He had a full and fruitful life. Nor can we or ought we forget the countless victims, both among our own people and among the Allies, of the ruthless and organised violation of the humane restrictions by which both on land and sea the necessary horrors of war have been hitherto mitigated. For my own part I say plainly and emphatically that I see nothing in the note of the German Government which gives me the least reason to believe that they are in a mood to give to the Allies what the last time I spoke I declared to be essential-reparation and security.

If they are in the right mood--if they are prepared to give us reparation for the past and security for the future, let them say so. While I was at the head of the Government, on several occasions I indicated, I believe, in quite unambiguous language, the minimum of the Allies' demands, before they put up their swords, as well as the general character of the ultimate international status upon which our hopes and desires are set. I have no longer authority to speak for the Government or the nation, but I do not suppose the House or the country are going back from what I said in their name and on their behalf. It is not we that stand in the way of peace when we decline, as I hope we shall, to enter blindfold into the parleys which start from nothing, and therefore can lead to nothing. Peace we all desire, but peace can only come-peace, I mean, that is worthy the name and that satisfies the definition of the word-peace will only come on the terms that atonement is made for past wrongs, that the weak and the downtrodden are restored, and that the faith of treaties and the sovereignty of public law are securely enthroned over the nations of the world.

Speech of Bonar Law, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons, December 21, 19161

The House will readily understand that I am divided between two desires. It is the general desire of the House, I think, that we should rise to-morrow, and if that is to be done it is quite impossible that a subject so vast as that which we have just been discussing can be properly debated to-night. I am going to try to set an example by saying very little indeed on the burning questions which have been

1The Times, London, December 22, 1916.

raised in the course of the debate. In regard to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, I at least who have only run vicarious risks have no right to throw taunts at a man who has had his place in the fighting line. At the same time, I am compelled to say that if the spirit of the speech to which we have just listened were to permeate this country, then, in my belief, all the blood and treasure which have been spent in this war will have been spent in vain. I do not think that he or anyone needs to impress upon us what are the horrors of this war.

If there were ever any who love war for itself—I have always hated it-if there were any whose imaginations were moved by the pomp and panoply of war, we know better now what it is. It is not glorious victories, or the hope of them, that is moving the hearts of the people of this country. What we think of is the men-our own nearest relations-who are suffering the hardships which have been pointed out to us. What we are thinking of are the desolate homes to which life will never return again in this world. What we are thinking of are the maimed and wounded whom we see going about our streets. We do not love war, and if I saw any prospect of securing the objects for which we have been fighting by a peace to-morrow, there is no man in this House who would welcome it more gladly than I would.

But what is the position? The hon. gentleman says-I hope no one will think that in quoting his words I have any party view in mind-"Let us trust to the old Liberal traditions; let us trust to the good hearts of those we are dealing with." Why are we in this war to-day? Why are we suffering the terrible agonies which this nation is enduring? It is because we did trust Germany; because we did believe that the crimes which have been committed by them would never be committed by any human being. It is all very well to say, "Let us get terms of peace." Can you get any terms of peace more binding than the treaty to protect the neutrality of Belgium? Can you come to any conclusion upon paper or by promise which will give us greater security than we had before this war broke out? Where are we to find them? I hope that not this country alone, but all the neutral nations of the world, will understand the position that has now arisen. Germany has made a proposal of peace. On what basis? On the basis of her victorious army.

The hon. member who spoke last tells us that if we win the victory. there will be conscription for ever in this country. But what will be the position if peace is settled on the basis of a victorious German army? Is there any man in this House who has honestly considered not merely the conditions in which this war was forced on

the world, but the way in which the war has been carried on—is there any man in this House who honestly believes that the dangers and miseries from which we have suffered can be cured in any other way than by making the Germans realize that frightfulness does not pay, and that their militarism is not going to rule the world?

I ask the House to realize what it is we are fighting for. We are not fighting for territory; we are not fighting for the greater strength of the nations who are fighting. We are fighting for two things, to put it in a nutshell: We are fighting for peace now, but we are also fighting for security for peace in the time to come. When this German peace proposal comes before us, not only based on German victories, but when they claim that they are acting on humanitarian grounds, when they treat it, to put it at the best, from their point of view, as if they and the Allies were at least equal-let the House consider what has happened in this war. Let them consider the outrages in Belgium, the outrages on sea and land, the massacres in Armenia, which Germany could have stopped at a word, if she had wished to do so.

Let them realize that this war will have been fought in vain, utterly in vain, unless we can make sure that it shall never again be in the power of a single man or of a group of men to plunge the world into. miseries such as I have described.

When the hon. gentleman talks about peace on these terms, I ask anyone in this House or in the country this question: Is there to be no reparation for the wrong? Is the peace to come on this basis, that the greatest crime in the world's history is to go absolutely unpunished? It is not vindictiveness to say that. It is my firm belief that unless all the nations of the world can be made to realize that these moral forces of which the hon. gentleman spoke have to be shown in actionunless we realize that, there never can be an enduring peace in this world. I am not afraid of my countrymen. We have been told that the troops at the front will fight to the end, to secure what they think is necessary as a result of this war. I am sure that they will. I am sure also that our fellow countrymen at home who up till now have made few sacrifices, except the sacrifice of those dear to them, are determined in this matter, and that if they can be made to believe, as I am sure they can, that the objects for which we are fighting can be secured, then there is no sacrifice which they will not be prepared to make. I am afraid I have said more than I intended when I rose, but I could not refrain from expressing what I felt on this subject.

Swiss Reply to President Wilson's Peace Note, December 23, 19161

The President of the United States of America, with whom the Swiss Federal Council, guided by its warm desire that the hostilities may soon come to an end, has for a considerable time been in touch, had the kindness to apprise the Federal Council of the peace note sent to the Governments of the Central and Entente Powers. In that note President Wilson discusses the great desirability of international agreements for the purpose of avoiding more effectively and permanently the occurrence of catastrophes such as the one under which the peoples are suffering to-day. In this connection he lays particular stress on the necessity for bringing about the end of the present war. Without making peace proposals himself or offering mediation, he confines himself to sounding as to whether mankind may hope to have approached the haven of peace.

The most meritorious personal initiative of President Wilson will find a mighty echo in Switzerland. True to the obligations arising from observing the strictest neutrality, united by the same friendship with the States of both warring groups of powers, situated like an island amidst the seething waves of the terrible world war, with its ideal and material interests most sensibly jeopardized and violated, our country is filled with a deep longing for peace, and ready to assist by its small means to stop the endless sufferings caused by the war and brought before its eyes by daily contact with the interned, the severely wounded, and those expelled, and to establish the foundations for a beneficial cooperation of the peoples.

The Swiss Federal Council is therefore glad to seize the opportunity to support the efforts of the President of the United States. It would consider itself happy if it could act in any, no matter how modest a way, for the rapprochement of the peoples now engaged in the struggle, and for reaching a lasting peace.

The New York Times, December 25, 1916.