regulations, were exasperating and serious, but upon neither side of the boundary did democracy harbor those sinister designs of aggrandizement and ambition which have characterized the autocratic governments of the world. On neither side was there suspicion of any such designs in the democracy across the border. The purpose of each nation was merely to stand up for its own rights, and so reason has always controlled, and every question has been settled by fair agreement, or by arbitral decision; and, finally, for the past eight years a permanent International Commission with judicial powers has disposed of the controversies arising between the citizens of the two countries along the border as unobtrusively and naturally as if the questions arose between citizens of Maryland and Virginia. Such has been the course of events, not because of any great design or far-seeing plan, but because it is the natural working of democratic government.

The incapacity of democracies to maintain policies of aggression may be fairly inferred from the extreme reluctance with which they incur the expense and make the sacrifices necessary for defense. Cherishing no secret designs of aggression themselves, they find it difficult to believe in the existence of such designs on the part of other nations. Only imminent and deadly peril awakens them to activity. It was this obstinate confidence in the peaceable intentions of all mankind which met Lord Roberts (honored, trusted, and beloved as he was) when long before the present war he vainly sought to awaken the people of England to the danger that he saw so plainly in Germany's stupendous preparation for conquest. It is well known that when the war came France was almost upon the verge of diminishing her army by a reduction in the years of service. In our own country a great people, virile, fearless, and loyal, have remained indifferent to all the voices crying in the wilderness for preparation, because the American people could not be made to believe that anything was going to happen inconsistent with the existence everywhere of those peaceful purposes of which they themselves were conscious.

There is a radical incompatibility between popular selfgovernment and continuous military discipline, for military control is in itself despotic. As compared with military autocracies, the normal condition of democracies is a condition of inferior military efficiency. This invariable characteristic of democracy leaves it no option in its treatment of autocracy. The two kinds of government cannot live permanently side by side. So long as military autocracy continues, democracy is not safe from attacks, which are certain to come sometime, and certain to find it unprepared. The conflict is inevitable and universal; and it is à l'outrance. To be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can. The world cannot be half democratic and half autocratic. It must be all democratic or all Prussian. There can be no compromise. If it is all Prussian, there can be no real international law. If it is all democratic, international law honored and observed may well be expected as a natural development of the principles which make democratic self-government possible.

The democracies of the world are gathered about the last stronghold of autocracy, and engaged in the conflict thrust upon them by dynastic policy pursuing the ambition of rulers under claim of divine right for their own aggrandizement, their own glory, without regard to law, or justice, or faith. The issue to-day and to-morrow may seem uncertain, but the end is not uncertain. No one knows how soon the end will come, or what dreadful suffering and sacrifice may stand between; but the progress of the great world movement that has doomed autocracy cannot be turned back, or defeated. That is the great peace movement.

There the millions who have learned under freedom to hope and aspire for better things are paying the price that the peaceful peoples of the earth may live in security under the protection of law based upon all-embracing justice and supreme in the community of nations.

THE CHALLENGE AND THE CONFLICT

DAVID LLOYD GEORGE

[David Lloyd George (1863- ) was born in Manchester, England, but spent most of his early life in Wales, the country of his parents. In 1890 he entered Parliament and has been a Cabinet minister since 1905. In 1909 as Chancellor of the Exchequer he introduced the budget which with its income taxes and other measures bore so heavily upon the landed and wealthy classes that it was rejected by the House of Lords an act which ultimately led to the abolition of the Lords' veto. He became Prime Minister in 1916 with a cabinet formed of representatives of all parties, and has reorganized the British cabinet system to simplify the prosecution of the war. He is noted for his remarkable effectiveness as a public speaker and for a truly Celtic power of emotional. appeal. The present selection is taken from a speech generally entitled "When the War Will End," delivered at Glasgow on June 29, 1917, and is noteworthy for its presentation of the underlying issues of the World War in terms that appeal to the ordinary man.]

Never did men stand more in need of sympathy and support of coöperation than the men who are guiding the fate of nations at this hour. In all lands we have been called to the helm in a raging tornado, the most destructive that has ever swept over the world on land or sea. Britain so far has weathered the storm. The hurricane is not yet over, and it will need all the efforts, all the skill, all the patience, all the courage, all the endurance of all on board to steer the country through without foundering in the angry deep. But with the coöperation of everybody we will guide it through once again. It is a satisfaction for Britain in these terrible times that no share of the responsibility for these events rests on her. She is not the Jonah in this storm. The part taken by our country in this conflict, in its origin, and in its conduct, has been as honorable and chivalrous as any part

ever taken in any country in any operation. We might imagine from declarations which were made by the Germans, aye! and even by a few people in this country, who are constantly referring to our German comrades, that this terrible war was wantonly and wickedly provoked by England never Scotland never Wales and never Ireland. Wantonly provoked by England to increase her possessions, and to destroy the influence, the power, and the prosperity of a dangerous rival.

There never was a more foolish travesty of the actual facts. It happened three years ago, or less, but there have been so many bewildering events crowded into those intervening years that some people might have forgotten, perhaps, some of the essential facts, and it is essential that we should now and again restate them, not merely to refute the calumniators of our native land, but in order to sustain the hearts of her people by the unswerving conviction that no part of the guilt of this terrible bloodshed rests on the conscience of their native land. What are the main facts? There were six countries which entered the war at the beginning. Britain was last, and not the first. Before she entered the war Britain made every effort to avoid it; begged, supplicated, and entreated that there should be no conflict. I was a member of the Cabinet at the time, and I remember the earnest endeavors we made to persuade Germany and Austria not to precipitate Europe into this welter of blood. We begged them to summon a European conference to consider. Had that conference met, arguments against provoking such a catastrophe were so overwhelming that there would never have been a war. Germany knew that, so she rejected the conference, although Austria was prepared to accept it. She suddenly declared war, and yet we are the people who wantonly provoked this war, in order to attack Germany. We begged Germany not to attack Belgium, and produced a treaty, signed by the King of Prussia, as well as the King of England, pledging himself to protect Belgium

against an invader, and we said, "If you invade Belgium, we shall have no alternative but to defend it." The enemy invaded Belgium, and now they say, "Why, forsooth, you, England, provoked this war." It is not quite the story of the wolf and the lamb. I will tell you why - because Germany expected to find a lamb and found a lion. So much for our responsibility for war, and it is necessary that the facts should be stated and restated, because I want us to carry on this war with a pure, clear conscience to the end.

Revolution is a fever brought about by the constant and reckless disregard of the laws of health in the government of a country. Whilst it is on, the strength of a country is diverted to the internal conflict which is raging in its blood, and it is naturally not so effective for external use during the period. The patient takes some time to recover his normal temperature, but when he begins to recover, if his constitution is good and the Russian nation has as fine a constitution as any nation ever possessed in all the essence of fine manhood then he will regain strength at a bound, and will be mightier and more formidable than ever.

That is the case in Russia: although this distraction has had the effect of postponing complete victory, it has made victory more sure than ever, more complete than ever. What is more important, it has made surer than ever the quality of the victory we will gain. What do I mean when I say it has insured a better quality of victory, because that is important? I will tell you why. There were many of us whose hearts were filled with gloomy anxiety when we contemplated all the prospects of a great peace conference summoned to settle the future of democracy with one of the most powerful partners at that table the most reactionary autocracy in the world. I remember very well discussing the very point with one of the greatest of the French statesmen, and he had great misgivings as to what would happen now that Russia is