THE WORLD IN WARLIKE MOOD

THE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK.

"The future historian of the first decade of the twentieth century will be puzzled. He will find that the world at the opening of the century was in an extraordinarily belligerent mood, and that the mood was well-nigh universal, dominating the New World as well as the Old, the Orient no less than the Occident. He will find that preparations for war, especially among nations which confessed allegiance to the Prince of Peace, were carried forward with tremendous energy and enthusiasm, and that the air was filled with prophetic voices, picturing national calamities and predicting bloody and world-embracing conflicts."

So writes Charles Edward Jefferson in the "Atlantic Monthly." His subject is "The Delusion of Militarism," and his, article takes a world-wide sweep. He continues thus:—

"Alongside of this fact he will find another fact no less conspicuous and universal—that everybody of importance in the early years of the twentieth century was an ardent champion of peace.

A LOVER'S WALK THROUGH GUNS.

"A crowd of royal peacemakers in a world surcharged with thoughts and threats of war, a band of lovers strolling down an avenue, which they themselves had lined with lyddite shells and twelve inch guns, this will cause our historian to rub his eyes.

"His perplexity will become no less when he considers the incontrovertible proofs that never since time began were the masses of men so peaceably inclined as in just this turbulent and war-rumour tormented twentieth century. He will find that science and commerce and religion had co-operated in bringing the nations together, that the wage-earners in all the European countries had begun to speak of one another as brothers, and that the growing spirit of fraternity and co-operation had expressed itself in such organisations as the Interparliamentary Union, with a membership of twenty-five hundred legislators and statesmen, and various other societies and leagues of scholars and merchants and lawyers and jurists. He will find delegations paying friendly visits to neighbouring countries, and will read, dumbfounded, what the English and German papers were saying about invasions, and the need of increased armaments, at the very time that twenty thousand Germans in Berlin were applauding to the echo the friendly greeting of a company of English visitors.

AFTER PEACE MORE GUNS.

"His bewilderment, however, will reach its climax when he discovers that it was after the establishment of an international court that all nations voted to increase their armaments. Everybody conceded that it was better to settle international disputes by reason rather than by force, but as soon as the legal machinery was created, by means of which the sword could be dispensed with, there was a fresh fury to perfect at once all the instruments of destruction. After each new peace conference there was a fresh cry for more guns.

"When he finds that it was only men who lived all their life with guns who were haunted by horrible visions and kept dreaming hideous dreams, and that the larger the armament the more was a nation harassed by fears of invasion and possible annihilation, he will propound to himself these questions: Was it all a delusion, the notion that vast military and naval establishments are a safeguard of the peace ? Was it a form of national lunacy, this frenzied outpouring of national treasures for the engines of destruction? Was it an hallucination, this feverish conviction that only by guns can a nation's dignity be symbolised, and her place in the world's life and action be honourably maintained?

WAR TO KEEP THE PEACE.

"Those are questions which our descendants are certain to ponder, and why should not we face them now? If this preparing for war in order to keep the peace is indeed a delusion, the sooner we find it out the better, for it is the costliest of all obsessions by which humanity has ever been swayed and mastered. There are multiplying developments which are leading thoughtful observers to suspect that this pre-Christian maxim is a piece of antiquated wisdom, and that the desire to establish peace in our modern world by multiplying and brandishing the instruments of war is a product of mental aberration. Certainly, there are indications pointing in this direction. The world's brain may possibly have become unbalanced by a bacillus carried in the folds of a heathen adage. The most virulent and devastating disease now raging on the earth is militarism.

"But it is not true that the world has gone mad. The masses of men are sensible; but at present the nations are in the clutches of the militarists, and no way of escape has yet been discovered. The deliverance will come as soon as men begin to think and examine the sophistries with which militarism has flooded the world.

THE COST OF ARMED PEACE.

"Certain facts will surely, some day, burn themselves into the consciousness of all thinking men. The expensiveness of the armed peace is just beginning to catch the eye of legislators. The extravagance of the militarists will bring about their ruin. They cry for battleships at ten million dollars each, and Parliament or Congress votes them. But later on it is explained that battleships are worthless without cruisers, cruisers are worthless without torpedo boats, torpedo boats are worthless without torpedo boat destroyers, all those are worthless without colliers, ammunition, boats, hospital boats, repair boats; and these all together are worthless without deeper harbours, longer docks, more spacious navy yards.   

"And what are all these worth without officers and men, upon whose education millions of dollars have been lavished? When at last the navy has been fairly launched, the officials of the army come forward and demonstrate that a navy, after all, is worthless unless it is supported by a colossal land force. Thus are the Governments led on, step by step, into a treacherous morass, in which they are at first entangled, and finally overwhelmed.

NATIONS - WITH HEAVY DEFICITS.

"All the great nations are to-day facing deficits, caused in every case by the military and naval experts. Into what a tangle the finances of Russia and Japan have been brought by militarists is known to everybody. Germany has, in a single generation, increased her national debt from eighteen million dollars to more than one billion dollars. The German Minister of Finance looks wildly round in search of new sources of national income. Financial experts confess that France is approaching the limit of her sources of revenue. Her deficit is created by her army and navy. The British Government is always seeking for new devices by means of which to fill a depleted treasury. Her Dreadnoughts keep her poor. Italy has for years staggered on the verge of bankruptcy because she carries an overgrown army on her back.

"Even our own rich Republic faces this year a deficit of over a hundred million dollars, largely due to the one hundred and thirty millions we are spending on our navy. Mr. Cortelyon has called our attention to the fact that while in thirty years we have increased our population by 85 per cent., and our wealth by 185 per cent., we have increased our national expenses by 400 per cent.

'It is within those thirty years that we have spent one billion dollars on our navy. And the end is not yet. The Secretary of the Navy has recently asked for twenty-seven new vessels for the coming year, four of which are battleships at ten million dollars each, and he is frank to say that these twenty seven are only a fraction of the vessels to be asked for later on.

"The militarists are peace-at-any-price men. They are determined to have peace even at the risk of national bankruptcy. Everything good in Germany, Italy, Austria, England, and Russia is held back by the confiscation of the proceeds of industry.

The Mercury 10 May 1909, 

PEACE OR WAR ?

QUITE recently a handful of citizens at a Sunday evening gathering of the Society of Friends decided to inaugurate what they termed a "Peace Society," and judging from the published remarks of some of the speakers at that meeting, the main object of the proposed society is to disabuse the minds of Australians that there is any danger to their country by its being kept in an unprepared and defenceless condition. These people are, no doubt, actuated by noble and humane sentiments, but will their arguments bear even the weakest criticism? Miss Rose Scott, one of the speakers at that meeting, spoke of "defence against imaginary enemies." This lady would advocate total disarmament in Australia, because, as she says, "for 15 centuries, war had been a standing libel on Christianity, a cruel and stupendous burden on the people." Any person who would stand up as a champion of Christianity and at the same time advocate disarmament, should remember that the Christianising of the heathen races— raising them to the higher levels of civilisation— has been brought about, not by the more preaching of the gospel, but by the Sword and the Bible — the emblem of England's greatness.  
During the past few days the news comes to us by cable that "Dr. C. Gore, Bishop of Birmingham, has declared that he is profoundly convinced that the way to avoid the dangers of militarism is to strengthen the civic army." The peace-at-any-price individuals in our midst seem to forget that after all the maintaining of naval and military forces is but a system of national insurance, and would they advocate the abolishment of that insurance, because there is no "guarantee" that Australia will be attacked by some aggressive Power ? If people in commercial and private life suddenly came to a determination on these lines, then the insurance companies would have to put up the shutters. People insure their property not because they know there will be a fire, but because of the possibility of a fire.
All will agree, no doubt, that "the courage children should be taught is the courage to do right." Can a child be taught anything better than love of home and country, loyalty to King and Empire? Such teaching must necessarily embrace the inculcation of the military spirit, for under present conditions universally existing patriotism and loyalty must go hand in hand with militarism. If our young Australians are taught to regard defence preparations as superfluous, and to follow the principle of trust and be trusted, without any regard for what is being taught to the children of other nations, then there will grow up in Australia an army of milksops and fools, unprepared and unfit to defend their country in the hour of peril, and who, when that time comes, will have to bow their heads in shame, suffer national disgrace, and submit to absorption by the enemy whom they "trusted."          
Those Peace Society people must be regarded as enemies within the gates. They are as dangerous to their country's security as the few whose rebellious utterances a few years ago, during the progress of the Boer War, made their names to be abhorred by every right-thinking British subject. It is contended that the spirit of war is a return to the ideals of barbarism. If this be so, then we are not living in such an enlightened and progressive age as is supposed, for the spirit of war is as strong to-day as at any time in the history of nations. It has been left to a member of the Sydney "Peace Society" to convey to the world the startling information that none are civilised, but all are barbarians.
Universal peace is a dream of the future, and a present-day impossibility, and taking past history as a criterion so long as commercial rivalry between the nations continues to exist, and unclaimed territory and hidden wealth remain to be won, then so long will there be a desire for war, and consequently the necessity for maintaining armaments.
It seems a feasible argument that so long as the nations of the world remain divided in their religious, social, and political beliefs, and until they combine practically as one great nation, speaking the one language, and with interests and aspirations in common, there will continue to be racial quarrels, international disputes, and wars and rumors of wars. Some people speak confidently of international friendships; but, judging from the results of the Hague Conference that friendship is a false one. There can be no question in the world that the attitude of Germany to-day is one of aggression, the plain and admitted reason of this being that owing to her failures of the past in the direction of colonisation, she is being forced into the position of seeking an outlet for her vast population. In other words, Germany is arming not particularly to defend herself against a possible enemy, but with the hope one day of, if possible, dealing a death-blow to some other nation (do we need to ask which nation ?) with the object of opening up the way for an expansion of her territory. Of course, if the denunciations of our Peace Society "friends" in Sydney should reach the ears of the German Emperor, he may at once issue an order for the complete disarmament of the German nation, but it is very doubtful. Need we for one moment question the attitude of Germany, in regard to defence preparations when by cable there has just come to us the news that Dr. Karl Liebknecht, a German Socialist, has been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in a fortress for high treason in fomenting anti-militarism opinion. We may not be able to accuse our Peace Society "friends" of high treason, but were they in Germany their society would go into compulsory liquidation, and they would go to a fortress, where there would be a good opportunity for each of them to allow his or her bump of self-preservation to more largely develop.
Have our peace-at-any-price "friends" yet turned their eyes to the north-east ? If they have, what do they sea ? They see millions of Japanese and Chinese be coming skilled in the arts and science of war, and with these races, it is not a case of their going back to barbarism, but they are merging from a state, of barbarism into a high state of enlightenment and civilisation. We may well ask, Where, and how, is it all going to end ? One may venture the opinion that this feverish competition in the building of battleships and the manufacture of implements of war can never be stopped by agreement or treaty. International treaties are not worth the paper they are written on, and are merely instruments for temporary diplomatic use. Authorities who have made a life study of this subject appear to be convinced that international rivalry, hatred, and jealousy are destined to be stamped out, as far as it is possible to do so, only in one way — by force of arms, a war probably between two great military combinations. And when the great struggle is over, and the spoil divided, what then ? Who will be the masters of this great continent ?
Despite the sense of security which is felt and expressed by some people, and despite the careless indifference of a few wooden-headed legislators, it is gratifying to note that the Press organs of this country are now paying a good-deal of attention to the question of Australian defence. On this point the words of Lord Charles Beresford in his preface to "Nelson and His Times" (1905), are applicable:—
"The Press and the people have awakened to the importance of the question, and none too soon. In Europe, and, indeed, in the world, we have no friends, but many bitter enemies. Other people are naturally jealous of our vast possessions. It may be that our Empire will have once more to face the troubles, difficulties, and dangers which have accompanied the beginning of each century."  
We have been asked to forget, and to teach our children to forget, the name of Nelson. Surely such a request from a British subject could be made only out of the deepest ignorance of the glorious work achieved by the greatest of British heroes. It was Nelson's great victories that placed England in the position of a first-rate Power. For the freedom that we enjoy and the accomplishment of the national greatness of which we are so proud, Nelson fought and died. It was Nelson's great achievements that placed England in the position or wielding a mighty influence in the interests of peace, civilisation, and progress in the councils of the world.
Are we Australians, by neglect of our own beloved island continent — a part of the Great British Empire — going to be guilty of helping to undo the great work so well and nobly begun by one whose name should be deeply engraven in the heart of every true British subject. The words of Shakespeare are as true to-day as when they were written centuries ago:—      
"It is most meet we arm us 'gainst the foe,    
For peace itself should not so dull a kingdom
Though war nor no known quarrel were in question,
but that defences, musters, preparations,
Should be maintained, assembled, and collected,   
As were a war in expectation."
—WALTER H. CLUTTON. 

Sunday Times 20 October 1907, 

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE.

The reduction of the strength of the British military forces and the modification of the naval programme so far as to abandon the building of one of the large armoured cruisers and a battleship of the Dreadnought class may find a certain justification from a mere financial point of view, but is indefensible when contrasted with the increasing armaments of neighbouring Powers. The naval programme of Germany has been increased, and German military experts do not regard the invasion of England as a particularly formidable task, should Great Britain be seriously embroiled somewhere else; yet instead of meeting, preparations of this kind by counter-preparations, there is only a decadent desire for avoidance of expense and the responsibility of maintaining national efficiency. This comparative indifference on the part of the mother country has had a mischievous effect on the colonies, and particularly on Australia, which has not yet realised the dangers to which she is now exposed from the eager desire of European countries for oversea expansion. There is the keenest competition for possession of the world's waste spaces, and as the Monroe doctrine forbids European Powers meddling with American territories, and as the war in the Far East has temporarily put an end to European aggression in Asiatic countries, the line of least resistance is found across the Pacific. Here Australia, with its scant population, its wide open spaces, rich tropical, sub-tropical, and temperate soil, is the richest prize for a nation desirous of colonisation. What is our defence ? Has this question ever been seriously considered as a whole, and has any true answer ever been given ? In the first place there has never been a true recognition of the responsibility of defence as an essential part of every man's citizenship, and there is a grotesque anomaly between the amount of money devoted to military expenditure as contrasted with the way in which the local naval and coastal defence forces have been starved. The question is not one of militarism, but of national safety, and of the inculcation of self-reliance in making adequate provision for what is the first requirement of every nation. The appeals which Lord Roberts is continually making to his own countrymen should come with even greater force to Australians. Preparations for war, said the veteran Field Marshal recently, mean nothing more nor less than the application of all that is best in the mind and intelligence of the country to the business of defence. In an article contributed to the "Nineteenth Century" last year he said : "I maintain that it is the bounden duty of the State to see that every able-bodied man in this country, no matter to what grade of society he may belong, undergoes some kind of military training in his youth, sufficient to enable him to shoot straight, and carry out simple orders if ever his services are required for the national defence." And where can this training be better given than in connection with the education of children ?" It is," said Lord Roberts, "because I fear that nothing short of a national disaster will make the people of this country realise this that I earnestly press for the boys and youths of Great Britain to be given an education which will teach them their duty to their country, and imbue them with that spirit of patriotism without which no nation can expect to continue great and prosperous." These principles hold equally good in the case of Australia, where there is better material to work upon, and where the expansion of the cadet system is a step in the right direction. But in every country a defence system must be organic, and must be directed to providing against the particular dangers to which that country is exposed. In the case of Australia it would be hardly too much to say that the defence system is chaotic, and that ninety-nine people out of every hundred could not give any coherent account of what bad been done in the way of military defence. The only thing certain is that so much money is expended every year, and that troops occasionally take part in Important State functions. It would, therefore, appear that the best method of reform would be to wipe the slate clean. For our land defences we need no elaborate military forces, and if adequate training were given at school it should be easy enough to organise a volunteer system on simple yet comprehensive lines which would give much better results with less expenditure. This again would enable the Commonwealth to pay greater attention to the first line of defence on the coast, and here the training of naval cadets should be regarded as of quite as great an importance as the encouragement of military cadets ; yet in what Mr. Deakin referred to the other day as "a systematic and continuous policy of defence" no provision whatever had been made for naval cadets in our seaport capitals, where the bulk of our population is concentrated. Captain Creswell, who is now returning from London, has apparently been successful in his mission for the encouragement of an Australian navy, the very nucleus of which will entail a greater naval expenditure ; but this will readily be met if naval and military defence be placed in their true proportion and relation to each other, without any immediate need for drawing more heavily on the Treasury.

The Brisbane Courier 13 June 1906,

THE EVILS OF MILITARISM.

To the Editor.

Sir— It is one of the inevitable results of all acts of oppression and injustice that the penalty imposed upon those who have been guilty of them does not necessarily take the form of a retaliation, but almost invariably proceed as a consequence of its own acts. Such being the case, it is therefore not surprising to find that a nation like the English, who have violated and destroyed the liberties of two brave little republics in South Africa, who cruelly wasted thousands of human lives, and squandered upwards of £228,000,000 in order that Rand millionaires might have cheap labour to work their mines, should be visited, not so much by remorse for their cruel and inhuman conduct as by a haunting sense of insecurity, which a fateful Nemesis ever invokes against those who, possessed of higher ideals, have descended to lower and ignoble ones. And so it happens if we are to continue to follow the insane and incapable leadership of those who involved us in this most iniquitous war, that the only thing now left for us, it would appear, as per our military expert, Lord Roberts (who declared the war was over two years before peace was finally patched up,) is to secure our freedom by adopting those methods of military enrolment, which, among the nations of Europe, have done so much to maintain the iron grip of despotism over the masses of tho people, which has checked liberty, encouraged corruption, and retarded their moral and material advancement more than any other factor in modern times. In the United Kingdom and British India during the current year nearly £90,000,000 is being expended upon the army and navy— the largest sum ever spent by any people by way of current expenditure upon a defence force which it is still contended is inefficient. What are things coming to in this twentieth century, about which so much loudmouthed, boastful nonsense has been spoken and written, if the issue of all this intelligence, the aggregation of all this wealth, is merely that we may more effectively provide the means for blowing each other up? What comes of all this vapouring talk of human brotherhood and of the glories of our common Christian faith when the end and aim of all our institution is to set each Christian nation in battle array against each other, each equipped with the most deadly weapons that human ingenuity can devise for securing each other's mutilation and destruction? It is, of course, not denied that if we are bent upon carrying out the insane Imperial policy of Cecil Rhodes of grimly "painting the world red" we shall certainly require a very large army and a most powerful navy. But we who are just plain ordinary folk, who will be expected to "pay, pay, pay," may reasonably ask whether it is necessary that we should submit to this enormous and ever-increasing drain upon our resources— an expenditure which will benefit no one but a few commanders-in-chiefs, moneylenders, millionaires and other parasites, with but the inevitable result of arousing the jealousies of surrounding nations and of provoking that very opposition to our policy against which it was professedly designed this huge expenditure upon armaments was to render us invulnerable. The grim iron man of military aggressiveness is never satisfied.
A few years ago it was thought to be sufficient, for defence purposes if the English Navy was equal to that of two first-class Powers; but now, notwithstanding the millions spent upon the construction of new ships, which frequently have become obsolete before they have scarcely been put into commission. Admiral Fischer, our naval authority, declares that to maintain our naval preponderance we must increase our strength as three to one. In view of the increasing strength of the German Fleet he has given further expression to the utterly cynical opinion that if England is to smash up the German Navy now is the time to do it, before it becomes too strong. It is this reckless sort of talk of these professional butchers, as if human life was generated solely for the purpose of being employed as a target, to be shot at, that so much of this increasing and extravagant expenditure is due. And thus it happens that, instead of every battleship constructed, or battalion formed, adding to our defensive strength, this aggressive activity on our part serves only to excite a similar activity on the part of our supposed opponents, with the consequent result of a general increase of burdens on all sides, without any addition of strength to either. The interests of the masses of the people are ever in favour of peace. It is only the military cliques and classes ambitious for opportunities for destruction and promotion that derive any advantage from war. And when once the people realize what are their true interests, and refuse any longer to be deluded by appeals to a false and narrow patriotism that would induce them to seek the mortal injury of a neighbouring people, it will then be recognised that the only statesmanlike way for the settlement of disputes between nations as between individuals is to come to a calm understanding upon the points at issue and to agree to submit them to arbitration. In conclusion, permit me to add that while I believe under a wiser and more moderate policy resort to a conscription or some form of compulsory military service will be utterly unnecessary, it must be clear to all that we cannot continue our present policy of arrogant self-assertiveness without increasing our military and naval forces in order to secure us from that attack which our aggressive attitude is certain in the near future to provoke.
I am. Sir. &c,
W. H. POPE.
 The Register 18 August 1905,

THE BATTLE OF DORKING

JOHN BULL, although he is credited with the possession of proud self-reliance, must be a good-humored, humble-minded being after all. How else could he have read with smiling patience two such brochures as "Dame Europa's School" and "The Battle of Dorking," which represent him in a state of abject helplessness, and hold him up to pity and contempt? On seeing the melancholy picture of himself which the authors of these productions have drawn, he exhibits as much complacency as eminent statesmen are said to do when they recognise their own features in the cartoons of Punch. Of the two little publications named above, the first which appeared when the Franco-German war was in progress, and was reproduced by most of the colonial journals, including our own, has already run its course; and has gone the way of all ephemeral literature. The second reprinted with emendations from the May number of "Blackwood," and also transferred to the columns of many of the Australasian newspapers, may still be regarded as in the hey-day of popularity. Apart altogether from its subject-matter, the literary merits of the publication would suffice to ensure for it a wide perusal. It is evidently written by a military man, and therefore we are not surprised to find the Pall Mall Gazette stating with confidence that though the authorship has been ascribed to a great many persons, it really was written by Colonel George Chesney, the author of " Indian Polity." In style it is racy, fresh, and graphic—just the sort of thing, in fact, we might expect from some accomplished "special" attached to the volunteers in the event, of a German invasion of England. But, having said this much, there remains little else about the work to commend. It is simply a contribution to that literature of panic which has enormously increased the army estimates, and, made the income-tax, in the experience of thousands in the old country, a burden grievous to be borne. In his anxiety to reconcile the country to the necessity of lavish military expenditure, the author overshoots his mark, and makes of his fanciful dream of conquest a frightful nightmare. He represents the German invasion taking place at a time when a rising in India has called off a part of our small army; when ten thousand men, including three battalions of the Guards, were needed to defend Canada against an American attack; when large bodies of troops were quartered in Ireland to check an anticipated Fenian descent; and when the fleet was scattered abroad, the best part of it at the Dardanelles, some ships in the West Indies, some in the China seas, and others protecting the British colonies on the Northern Pacific shores of America. The writer does not seek to show that the troops and ships of the fleet were not required at the various places where they happened to be when the great crash of German invasion came upon England; and therefore if the Teuton conquerors of Gaul acted on the persuasion that England's extremity was Germany's opportunity, it would have been quite impossible for Britain in the circumstances, by any amount of preparation and outlay, to make a better resistance than she is represented as doing in the reminiscences of a volunteer. For the purpose of giving the serried ranks of spiked helmets the easiest possible descent upon the British Isles, the author of this wild dream of conquest took a very effective way of disposing of the only portion of the fleet that could be of service in interposing between the enemy and the shore. All the ships, with the exception of a solitary ironclad which escaped to Portsmouth, were sent to the bottom by the heavy fire of the terrible Teutons, or blown up by torpedoes. The set time for the final effacement of Britain, unpreventible by the reconstruction of its military and naval systems, must surely have come when a disaster so complete overwhelms the ships that guard the seas—the only approaches to the British coasts.  
We may express a hope that "The Battle of Dorking,"' which is the reductio ad absurdum of the late panic in England, when Mr Cardwell shouldered his Army Regulation Bill, will be the last specimen of invasion literature we shall see for some time to come. Some of the German newspapers, elated by the glories of the late war, may amuse their readers by speculating on the feasibility of the annexation of England by Germany; but the great heart of the German people, now that their enthusiasm has gone off in festal celebrations, is intently set on pursuing the conquests of peace, and in helping onward the great cause of Christian civilisation.
 Launceston Examiner 3 October 1871,

BRITISH TRADE.

—      

To the Editor.      
Sir,— Last week you published a cable from London stating that "The Times" says British trade is declining. Nearly a year ago, from what I could see, and from what I could hear, and from what I read in the press, I came to the conclusion that the decline of British trade was inevitable. Since then I have been closely watching the British trade returns, but these, to my surprise, seemed to indicate that the trade was expanding. Now, however, "The Times" steps forward and says the trade is declining. There can be no doubt that "The Times" has closely examined all the figures, and we can rest satisfied that British trade is on the decline. I feel quite certain that when the special fillip given to trade by the wars in South Africa and China is over, the decline in trade will be most marked, and the effect very far reaching indeed.
So far the remarks of "The Times" have not been noticed by the local press. If this decline of trade were one of the ordinary vicissitudes of trade it would not call for any particular notice, but if my judgment is correct, this is not an ordinary fluctuation of trade, but probably the commencement of a decline of trade that will never be recovered, and will ultimately leave England far behind other nations in the matter of commerce. On this subject I base my conclusions on the fact that the character of the English nation has changed, and is becoming solely militant and imperialistic. As John Burns recently said, "An industrial people have become imperialised, a peaceful people ; militarised." I submit that this change will result most injuriously to the growth and development of trade, and has done so throughout the history of the world. Its evil effects are to be seen everywhere. The attention of the people is withdrawn from commercial pursuits and directed to what is called military glory. In England to day there are thousands and thousands of young men just leaving school who a few years ago would have entered on commercial pursuits, but who are now clamouring, and clamouring too successfully, to their parents to be allowed to join the army. The same thing is taking place in the ranks of the working classes, and labour for the factory is daily becoming scarcer. In fact, the evil has permeated the whole of the British people. Not only is this evil raging in England, but it is raging still more in these Australian colonies, and here, as in England, it is encouraged by wretched Jingo Governments and by a money-making press. How can we expect England to compete in the matter of trade with a nation like America, when we find the British Government encouraging the growth among the people of every national sentiment that is antagonistic to trade.
In America, Germany, France, and other countries we find the Governments devoting the utmost attention to the question of developing trade. It is part of the national policies of these Governments to do so. In England the Jingo Government ignores such questions as part of their policy, but adopt with success the policy of encouraging militarism and imperialism. If my judgment is correct, there can be one result only from this policy, and I shall expect to see British trade continue to decline and England lose her place as the first nation of the world. If we read the proceedings of the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, held in London last June, we will notice many references to the dangers that beset English trade, and when a deputation was appointed by the Congress to wait on Lord Salisbury and ask him to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of British trade, he declined to meet them, saying he considered the time was inopportune to discuss the matter. And this generally is the attitude of the British Government to matters of trade.
That the character of the British people has changed, and is still changing, cannot, I think, be denied. That this change is for the worse, I also think, cannot be denied. Moral considerations have not now the weight with the British mind that they once had. In the popular estimation might is becoming right. The nation is growing hypocritical. It professes to be Christian and to follow the teachings of the founder of that religion, but as a matter of fact they cheer for everything that is deadly opposed to His teaching. Even the clergy, almost without exception, have joined in singing the glory of battlefields instead of teaching the doctrines of peace and arbitration. They have become the blind leaders of the blind. At a time when the conscience of other nations of the world seems to be turning to peace and arbitration and trade development, the British conscience seems to be turning to imperialism and militarism. Nations that once almost looked with envy at England's moral worth now regard her from the opposite standpoint and are boycotting her merchandise. As a result of Jingo Government in England the people will shortly find £200,000,000 added to the national debt, increased taxation to meet the interest on this sum and to provide for increased military expenditure, a rapidly declining trade, and something worse than a second Ireland established in South Africa.
Would to God the people in Australia, would awake to the evils of imperialism and militarism, and that the press would assist to crush the thing out of the public mind, is the wish of
Yours, &c.,
ANTI-JINGO.
Rockhampton, 14th January, 1901.

 The Capricornian 19 January 1901,