Freda Bedi Cont'd (#2)

[admin]

Part 1 of 5

The Open Court: A Monthly Magazine
Founded by Edward C. Hegeler
September, 1915



$1.00 per Year SEPTEMBER, 1915 Price, 10 Cents
The Open Court
A MONTHLY MAGAZINE
Devoted to the Science of Religion, the Religion of Science, and the Extension of the Religious Parliament Idea
Founded by Edward C. Hegeler
VOL. XXIX (No. 9) SEPTEMBER, 1915 NO. 712


FUDO, THE JAPANESE GOD OF WILL-POWER.

CONTENTS:

• Frontispiece. Jikokuten, Guardian of the East.
• Fudo-Myowo (Illustrated). Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki 513
• Carlyle and the War. Marshall Kelly 527
• Hyphenation Justified. Paul Carus 557
• A Chronicle of Unparalleled Infamies. An Open Letter to Dr. Paul Carus (With Editorial Reply) 562
• Miss Farmer and Greenacre 572
• Jikokuten, Guardian of the East (With Illustration) 572
• The Lotus Gospel 574
• Book Reviews and Notes 575

The Fragments of Empedocles
By WILLIAM ELLERY LEONARD

A reconstruction of Empedocles's system of creation. Greek-English text. "There is no real creation or annihilation in the universal round of things. There is only the Everlasting Law." Cloth, $1.00

Aesop and Hyssop
By WILLIAM ELLERY LEONARD

Fables adapted and original, in a variety of verse forms, picturesque, lively, and humorous in phrasing, with a moral, fresh in wisdom and succinct in expression, pleasingly appended to each. Profitable for amusement and doctrine in nursery and study. Cloth, $1.50

The Open Court Publishing: Company
Chicago, Illinois

JIKOKUTEN, GUARDIAN OF THE EAST. From a terra cotta in the Todaji temple at Nara (8th century).

FUDO-MYOWO.
BY DAISETZ TEITARO SUZUKI.

FROM the earliest days of Buddhism in Japan, one of the most popular gods is found to be Fudo, whose Sanskrit name is Achala, the Immovable. His name and his general features and attitude suggest the fierceness of his original character. One might think that such a terrible-looking god could represent only evil, destroying every vestige of goodness in the world. But in fact he is worshiped as one who will grant his devotees all the worldly advantages that they may ask of him. Hence his extreme popularity.

The service, which is done by the priest who represents the saint Padma-sambhava, is here summarized. It is called "The Expelling Oblation of the hidden Fierce Ones"...

Hum! Through the blessing of the blood-drinking Fierce One, let the injuring demons and evil spirits be kept at bay. I pierce their hearts with this hook; I bind their hands with this snare of rope; I bind their body with this powerful chain; I keep them down with this tinkling bell. Now, O! blood-drinking Angry One, take your sublime seat upon them. Vajor-Agu-cha-dsa! vajora-pasha-hum! vajora-spo-da- va! vajora-ghan-dhi-ho!"

Then chant the following for destroying the evil spirits: —

"Salutation to Heruka, the owner of the noble Fierce Ones! The evil spirits have tricked you and have tried to injure Buddha's doctrine, so extinguish them .... Tear out the hearts of the injuring evil spirits and utterly exterminate them."

Then the supposed corpse of the linka should be dipped in Rakta (blood), and the following should be chanted: —

"Hum! O! ye hosts of gods of the magic-circle! Open your mouths as wide as the earth and sky, clench your fangs like rocky mountains, and prepare to eat up the entire bones, blood, and the entrails of all the injuring evil spirits. Ma-ha mam-sa-la kha hi! Ma-ha tsitta-kha hi! maha-rakta kha-hi! maha-go ro-tsa-na-kha-hi! Maha-bah su-ta kha hi! Maha-keng-ni ri ti kha hi!"

Then chant the following for upsetting the evil spirits...

"Bhyo! Bhyo! On the angry enemies! On the injuring demon spirits! On the voracious demons! turn them all to ashes!

"Mah-ra-ya-rbad bhyo! Upset them all! Upset! Upset!...

A burnt sacrifice is now made by the Demon-king. He pours oil into a cauldron, under which a fire is lit, and when the oil is boiling, he ties to the end of a stick which he holds an image of a man made of paper, and he puts into the boiling oil a skull filled with a mixture of arak (rum), poison, and blood, and into this he puts the image; and when the image bursts into flame, he declares that all the injuries have been consumed...

And when the image is abandoned the crowd tear it to pieces and eagerly fight for the fragments, which are treasured as charms...

-- The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism, by Laurence Austine Waddell, M.B., F.L.S., F.R.G.S.

According to the Shingon sect, he is the central figure of the five Vidyarajas (lords of magic1) or Krodharajas (gods of wrath), and is considered a manifestation of Vairochana Buddha himself (Dainichi2). His original vow, that is, his samaya, (every supernatural being is supposed to have made some kind of vow in the beginning of his existence,) was to remove all possible obstacles which lie in the way of Buddhism.


AN IMAGE OF DAINICHI (VAIROCHANA). The Buddha is here attended by Fudo (Achala) and Kwannon (Avalokiteshvara). From the Shimpuku-ji, Kyoto.

In one of the kalpas3 concerning the worship of this god, we are told how to represent him in a picture: "Paint Achala the Messenger4 on good silk,5 put on him a red garment worn across the body, and his skirt too should be red. One braid of his hair hangs down over his left ear. He looks somewhat squintingly with his left eye. A rope is in his left hand, and a sword is held upright in his right. The top of the sword resembles a lotus-flower, and on its handle there is a jeweled decoration.6 He sits on a rock made of precious stones. His eyebrows are lifted, and his eyes expressing anger are such as to frighten all sentient beings. The color of his body is red and yellow. When you have thus painted the god, take the picture to the bank of a river or to the seashore,7 where he should be enshrined according to the established formula."8

This is the way Fudo is generally painted, and in most modern pictures or images of him we see flames enveloping his whole body, which is blue; and the seat on which he sits or stands is not always decorated with gems; it may be merely a huge block of stone, or a sort of tiled pedestal. His forehead has in most cases some wrinkles in the form of waves, which is in accord with the description in the "Vairochana Sutra."

The meaning of all these various symbols is explained as follows in the introductory part of the Trisatnaya-achala-kalpa (the three-volume version): "There is a deep significance in his being one-eyed," for this is the symbol of the utmost ugliness, and compels Achala to think of his own shortcomings and defects which stand in such contrast to the noble, perfect and superior features of the Buddha. Furthermore, this ugliness tends to frighten away evil beings. The seven knots on the top of his head signify the seven branches of bodhi, wisdom. One braid of hair hanging down his left shoulder typifies his merciful heart, which is sensitive to the sufferings of all lowly and much-neglected beings. . . .The sword in his right hand is meant to wage war against evils in the same way as a worldly warrior fights against his enemy. The rope in his left is to bind those devils whose unruly spirits have to be kept under control by the Buddha's restraining hands. The rock on which he sits is the symbol of his character, that is, immovability. Like the mountain pacifying the tumultuous waves of the great ocean, the rock represents the eternal calmness of the mind. It also represents spiritual treasure as the mine conceals in its bosom precious metals and stones. The fire enveloping the deity signifies the burning up of all the impurities that are attached to the human heart."


FUDO IMAGE AT KOYASAN. Koyasan is the sacred place of the Shingon sect.

Another interpretation of Fudo appears in I-Hsing's "Commentary on the Vairochana Sutra" (Vol. V, pp. 46f.): "This god has in a long past attained his Buddhahood upon the lotus pedestal of Vairochana; but owing to his original vow he now manifests himself in his early imperfect form, which he had at the time of the first awakening of his great heart. Becoming the Tathagata's servant and messenger, he is engaged in various menial works. He holds a sharp sword and a rope in his hands in obedience to the Tathagata's wrathful commands to destroy all sentient beings.11 The rope represents the four practical methods of preaching, woven out of the heart of knowledge [bodhichitta]. The rope will ensnare unruly ones and keep them in check. The sharp sword of wisdom is to cut off the interminable life of karma possessed by unruly spirits, in order to let them obtain a great transcendental existence. When karma's seed of life is removed, all idle windy talk will come to a final end. Therefore the god tightly closes his mouth. The reason why he sees with one eye only, is to show that when the Tathagata looks about with his eye of sameness12 there is not a sentient being who is to be forgiven. Therefore, in whatever work this god is concerned, his whole object is to accomplish this. His firm position on the pile of huge stones signifies the immovable spirit with which he works for the confirmation of the pure heart of knowledge."

Fudo in fact is the incarnation of obedience, faithfulness, and loyalty. He becomes the messenger of Vairochana, for he wishes to perform for him the servile duties of transmitting the august orders and messages of his lordship. As he is commanded, he goes among the poor as well as the noble; he makes no discrimination, and his only anxiety is to execute all the offices, whether good or bad, entrusted to him by Vairochana. He therefore symbolizes all the good virtues of a slave. The knots of hair hanging on the left side of his head denote the number of generations of the master whom he has served. The lotus-flower on his head13 is the vehicle on which he will convey his master to the other shore of life eternal, that is, to the Pure Land. In his menial capacity he will most faithfully serve his worshipers who are at the same time his masters. I am told that the reason his left eye looks in a different direction from the right, is because this is a noticeable peculiarity among the servile class.

In the Trisamaya-achala-kalpa (one-volume version), we are adviced to "make an offering to this holy one with a part of our own food and drink. As his original vow is to give himself up to lovingkindness, he is willing to serve all those who hold and recite his mantrams,14 his desire is to enslave himself, as we may see from his one-eyed form. He accepts our left-off food and if we thus remember him at each meal will be sure to protect us against the evil demons including Vinayaka (Ganesha) and will remove for us whatever obstacles or difficulties we may be encountering."


SYMBOLICAL REPRESENTATION OF FUDO. From a figure in the Musee Guimet.  

The following story is told of Fudo in I-Hsing's "Commentary on the Vairochana Sutra" (Vol. IX; Chap. 3, "On the Removal of Obstacles"): When the Tathagata received enlightenment all the sentient beings in the universe came to greet him, except the great lord of the heavens, Maheshvara, who was too proud to come and salute the Buddha. Thereupon, Achala was despatched to summon him to earth. But the lord of the heavens surrounded himself, though quite unbecoming to his dignity, with all sorts of filthy things so that nobody would dare approach him; for, however proficient one may be in magic arts, filth is supposed to be the most efficient means of disenchantment. Achala was not to be disheartened. All the filth was immediately devoured and disposed of. Seven times the lord refused to listen to the protest of Achala, saying that he was the supreme master of the heavens and had no cause to yield to any one's request. But the divine messenger proved to be more than a match for the haughty lord; for he firmly set his left foot upon the half-moon on the forehead of the lord himself, while his right foot was placed on that of the noble consort. Both expired under the pressure, but in the meantime they realized the significance of the holy doctrine as disclosed by the Buddha, and were promised their future attainment of Buddhahood. This explains the meaning of certain pictures of Fudo in which he is depicted as stamping on two figures, male and female. Fudo is commonly found attended by two figures and less frequently by eight; but his attendants are said sometimes to be as many as thirty-six or forty-eight. When there are two attendants, the one standing on his left, a young boy, is called Kinkara, and the other to the right who looks like a malicious demon is Chetaka. According to the "Mystic Rites concerning the Eight Boy-Attendants to the Holy Lord of the Immovable," Kinkara is a boy of about fifteen years and wears a lotus crown. His body is white. His hands are folded together and between the forefingers and the thumbs he holds a vajra15 crosswise. He wears a celestial garment as well as a Buddhist robe. The other boy, Chetaka, is of a red lotus color, and his hair is tied in five knots. In his left hand there is a vajra and in his right a vajra staff. As he cherishes anger and evil thoughts, he does not wear a Buddhist robe but a celestial garment only which hangs about his neck and shoulders. But in most of the popular pictures Kinkara holds a lotus-flower. He embodies wisdom whereas Chetaka means bliss.

Fudo sometimes is represented in the form of a sword around which is entwined a dragon or serpent holding the triangular point of the sword in its mouth. This is known as Kurikara Fudo and is supposed to be the symbolical representation of the god. But there is apparently a confusion here, for Kurikara, who is a king of the Nagas or dragons and who seems to be identical with the Sanskrit Kalika, is one of the eight attendants and is probably to be identified with Anavadapta.

There are many variations of Fudo partly because various legends are connected with his life, and partly because the artist or worshiper is free to have a figure of the god as he has conceived him in vision or otherwise. Still another cause of variation, and a strong one, is his extreme popularity.


TRADITIONAL TYPES OF FUDO.

This god is associated with the waterfall, and his image is generally carved in a rock near one. The devotee bathes himself in the flowing water as a token of purification, while devoutly offering his prayers to the flame-enveloped deity. In Tokyo there are many Buddhist temples dedicated to Fudo, and one of the most famous is that at Fukagawa on the south side of the river Sumida. In the midst of the cold season, many earnest followers of the god, men and women, can be seen bathing in the waterfalls which have been artificially constructed there for the purpose. Prayers thus offered during the cold season are considered to be especially efficacious. In former days, all these bathers were naked, but the authorities do not permit this now.

Almost all the temples in Japan issue what is known as an ofuda, "an honorable tablet" or slip, or omamori, "an honorable guard," of various kinds. This is generally a piece of paper (or sometimes a wooden board), oblong and varying in size, ordinarily from about 1x3 to about 7x15 inches, on which is printed the image of a Buddha, a Bodhisattva or one of the gods, but frequently merely a Sanskrit character or phrase, or some words of prayer which have been offered on behalf of the devotee. This omamori is supposed to have the power to ward off evil spirits if a man carries it about him or pastes it up on the entrance door of his residence or on the wall. Some omamoris or ofudas will even keep burglars away from one's house; some will protect the silkworm from an epidemic, while others may insure the safe delivery of a child. These are only a few of the things promised by the Buddhist gods or rather by the priest. Some sample Ofudas are reproduced here, they have come from the Fudo temples.

[T]he commonest use of sacred symbols is as talismans to ward off the evils of those malignant planets and demons who cause disease and disaster, as well as for inflicting harm on one's enemy. The symbols here are used in a mystical and magic sense as spells and as fetishes, and usually consist of formulas in corrupt and often unintelligible Sanskrit, extracted from the Mahayana and Tantrik scriptures, and called dharani, as they are believed to "hold" divine powers, and are also used as incantations...

The eating of the paper on which a charm has been written is an ordinary way of curing disease, as indeed it had been in Europe till not so many centuries ago, for the mystic Rx heading our prescriptions is generally admitted to have had its origin in the symbol of Saturn, whom it invoked, and the paper on which the symbol and several other mystic signs were inscribed constituted the medicine, and was itself actually eaten by the patient. The spells which the Lamas use in this way as medicine are shown in the annexed print, and are called "the edible letters" (za-yig).

A still more mystical way of applying these remedies is by the washings of the reflection of the writing in a mirror, a practice not without its parallels in other quarters of the globe. Thus to cure the evil eye as shown by symptoms of mind-wandering and dementia condition — called "byad-'grol" — it is ordered as follows: Write with Chinese ink on a piece of wood the particular letters and smear the writing over with myrobalams and saffron as varnish, and every twenty-nine days reflect this inscribed wood in a mirror, and during reflection wash the face of the mirror with beer, and collect a cupful of such beer and drink it in nine sips.

But most of the charms are worn on the person as amulets. Every individual always wears around the neck one or more of these amulets, which are folded up into little cloth-covered packets, bound with coloured threads in a geometrical pattern. Others are kept in small metallic cases of brass, silver, or gold, set with turquoise stones as amulets, and called "Ga-u." These amulets are fastened to the girdle or sash, and the smaller ones are worn as lockets, and with each are put relics of holy men — a few threads or fragments of cast-off robes of saints or idols, peacock feathers, sacred Kusa grass, and occasionally images and holy pills. Other large charms are affixed overhead in the house or tent to ward off lightning, hail, etc., and for cattle special charms are chanted, or sometimes pasted on the walls of the stalls, etc.

-- The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism, by Laurence Austine Waddell, M.B., F.L.S., F.R.G.S.

The general masses of people nowadays do not understand the full significance of Fudo worship. They go to his temple merely because he is a Buddhist god and as such is naively supposed to grant them anything they may be in need of. For instance, they may pray to him for success in races and games, or good fortune in their commercial enterprises (especially when much risk is involved, or to be free from accidents in travel. But, judging from the general tendency of his character, he seems to be especially efficient in removing all kinds of obstacles which lie in the way of one's undertaking, religious or otherwise. His qualification is more negative than positive. This is natural, for the very fact that a supreme, perfect being had to incarnate himself in this fierce, abnormal, disquieting form proves the extraordinary character of the god. His other title is "the great destroyer of hindrances."


A FUDO OMAMORI. The original was issued by a Fudo temple in Tokyo. The stamp on the top of the picture shows that it has been properly consecrated by the priest.


AN OMAMORI ISSUED BY THE SHINSHO-JI, NARITA. The original is a small piece of wood. The character reads ham, one of the symbolical letters for Fudo. The separate Chinese characters were on the paper cover and signify omamori.  

When the worshiper has thoroughly succeeded in identifying himself with the god, we are told, his fire will consume all the worlds and make them one mass of flame shining like seven suns; his mouth will devour like that of the great horse the multiplicity of things; and not the least chance will be left for any evil spirit to work mischief. Thus, he is to be invoked particularly when there are difficulties or obstructions to overcome; for instance, when an epidemic is to be checked, or a drought to be broken, or a personal enemy to be destroyed, or an opposing army to be annihilated, or a building to be insured against fire, storm, earthquake, etc. For the latter case, however, there is a specific ritual to be performed in which Fudo appears in a somewhat different form from the popular one.


OFUDA FROM THE KYOSHININ, A FUDO TEMPLE IN TOKYO.


INSCRIPTION ON COVER. (Reduced.)

In conclusion I will give here three mantrams used in the invocation of Fudo, the Immovable: the short, medium, and unabridged. The short one is: "Namah samantavajranam"; the medium one: "Namah samantavajranam chanda-maharoshana-svataya hum trat ham mam"; and the longest one: "Namah sarva-tatha-gatebhyo vishvamuphebhyah sarvata trat chanda-maharoshana kam khadi khadi sarvavighnam hum trat ham mam." They have no special meaning.

The one we reproduce is the "medium" form written in the siddham style (Japanese, sittan). The Japanese way of reading it is: Nomaku samanda bazara dan senda makaroshada sabataya un tarata kan mam. The cover reads, "The daily-burning-ceremony tablet, Kyoshin-in, Migawari-san." Fudo is sometimes represented by the characters ham-mam or ham alone. His ofuda is often found to be nothing but this character written in the style known as siddham.

_______________

Notes:

1 Ordinarily, five or eight Vidyarajas are mentioned, though there are some more belonging to this class of gods. The five most commonly grouped are Yamantaka (Dai-itok), Trailokyavijaya (Gosanze), Achala (Fudo), Vajrayaksha (Kongo-yasha), and Kundali (Gundari). They all seem to represent Shiva in his destructive form. Theoretically speaking, every Buddha or Bodhisattva has his Krodhakaya, his angry expression, as well as his female counterpart; but the number of the known gods of wrath is less than that of the Buddhas.

About the end of the sixth century A.D., Tantrism or Sivaic mysticism, with its worship of female energies, spouses of the Hindu god Siva, began to tinge both Buddhism and Hinduism. Consorts were allotted to the several Celestial Bodhisats and most of the other gods and demons, and most of them were given forms wild and terrible, and often monstrous, according to the supposed moods of each divinity at different times. And as these goddesses and fiendesses were bestowers of supernatural power, and were especially malignant, they were especially worshipped...

Such was the distorted form of Buddhism introduced into Tibet about 640 A.D.; and during the three or four succeeding centuries Indian Buddhism became still more debased. Its mysticism became a silly mummery of unmeaning jargon and "magic circles," dignified by the title of Mantrayana or "The Spell-Vehicle".

-- The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism, by Laurence Austine Waddell, M.B., F.L.S., F.R.G.S.

2 Dainichi, the great illuminator of the universe, is, according to the Shingon, the central figure of the world-system. It is through him that all existence is made possible, and that life can be enjoyed in its purity though filled with various defilements. That Fudo came to play such an important role in the pantheon of Buddhism is probably due to the fact of his being an incarnation of this all-powerful godhead, Vairochana. But some sutras consider him a manifestation of another Buddha.

3 Rules of ritual, forming a special class in the body of Buddhist literature. They are known in Japan as Himitsu-Giki, mystic rules of worship.
 
4 His title is sometimes "messenger," sometimes "lord of magic," but sometimes simply "the honorable." In these may be traced various stages of the historical development of the god.
 
5 This is not always required. To make the prayer especially efficacious for the suppression of evil doers, the devotee may paint the god with his own blood on cloth taken from a grave. It is sometimes recommended to paint him on any good cloth.
 
6 In none of his pictures so far I have come across is this observed.
 
7 Hence his association with waterfalls and springs.
 
8 This is taken from the book containing the "Mystic Rites of the Dharani of Achala the Messenger." A little further down, however, we have a somewhat different description of the god. He is now to be reddish-yellow, wearing a blue garment across the body, but still with a red skirt. His left-side braid is the color of a black cloud. The features are boyish. A vajra (thunderbolt) is in his right hand and a rope in his left. From both ends of his mouth his tusks are slightly visible. His angry eyes are red. Enveloped in flames he sits on a hill of stone.
 
In the Trisamaya-achala-kalpa (there are two versions of this book, one in three volumes and the other in one), the god is supposed to wear a skirt of the color of red earth and sits on a lotus-flower. In another place he holds a vajra, not a sword, in his right hand and a sacred staff in his left. The eyes are somewhat reddish, and his whole person is enveloped in flames.
 
These representations, though differing more or less in detail, are essentially alike. Quite another form of the god is described in the "Book of Rites concerning the Ten Gods of Wrath" as follows: "He has a squinting eye boyish features, six arms and three faces each of which has three eyes, and he wears boyish personal ornaments. The front face is smiling; the right is yellowish, with the tongue sticking out, the color of which is bloody; the left face is white, has an angry expression, uttering the sound "hum." The color of the body is blue; the feet rest on a lotus-flower and on the hill of precious stones. He stands with a dancer's attitude, and has power to keep away all evil ones. The entire person wrapped in flames has a circle of rays about it like the sun. The first right hand has a sword, the second a vajra, the third an arrow. Of the left hands the first holds a rope with the thumb standing, the second the Prajnaparamita Sutra, and the third a bow. The god wears a Buddha crown which is the symbol of Akshobhya Buddha.
 
There are some other forms of the god, more or less unlike the foregoing ones, but I will not go into details here. Suffice it to state in a general way that he assumes different features according to the different purposes for which his help is invoked. For instance, when he is requested to suppress the enemy, his body is to be painted yellow, with four faces and four arms. Sharp tusks are protruding from the mouth. His expression of anger is most intense, and encircled in burning flames his attitude is such as to make one think that he is going at once to devour an entire army of the enemy.
 
9 This tallies with the "Rites of the Ten Gods" as well as with Vajrapani's description of the god in his "Sutra on the Baptism of Light."
 
10 In the foregoing descriptions, squinting; but in some images both eyes look in the same direction.

11 Meaning "every evil tendency to be found in us."
 
12 In another place this is understood as meaning the uniqueness of the Buddha's spiritual eye-sight which is one, and not two nor three.
 
13 This lotus-flower is not mentioned anywhere in the kalpas in connection with the worship of this god.
 
14 Mystical verse.
 
15 This thunderbolt becomes the magic wand of Tibetan Buddhism.  

[admin]

Part 2 of 5

CARLYLE AND THE WAR.
BY MARSHALL KELLY.

PROEM.

IT is loudly asseverated that the British Empire is of one mind in regard to this war against Germany; and by the arithmetical count of heads, it probably is so to an overwhelming extent, as it has long been in other matters. But one wonders how many, or how few, there may be who reflect, with a depth of stable conviction altogether diverse from the popular unanimities, that the British are in this war, as in so very much else, acting in an express defiance of the teaching of the validest Sage and Hero-soul that has lately lived among them. Yea, in a witting defiance of the clearest revelation of indubitable facts, made by the Best of themselves in their midst, vitally connected with this very matter; which it preeminently behoved the British to have learned and laid to heart, as basis and guide for their whole relation to Germany. Few indeed, I fear, are those who know thus, if compared to the millions neglectful; yet possibly more numerous than those denying millions dream of, and certainly, were it unit against the rest of the race, of more weight in the final count. These in their musings on the war, its Causes and its Issues, will have their rock-based Certainties; also their profound Dubieties; their confidence in Eternal's justice, and joy in iniquity's overthrow; their submission to His decree, however terrible the desolation, however complete and hideous-seeming the triumph of Ill. Silent for the most part, and waiting the Event unforeseeable. For the nation does not ask their counsel; spurns it if offered; and follows, as most chosen of the Lord, the Demagogues which at each moment best mouth its own impious will. Moreover, so long as anything like a flaming success shall crown its effort, no contrary word will be listened to. Should adversity befall, it might prove otherwise; and in either, or in any, case we have and shall have our thoughts and our duties both during and after: Thoughts and duties which might perhaps gain a little in clearness if earnestly imparted, deliberated of.

To start with a small Certainty, surely sharable by many complexions: This attempt, of the Newspapers and Parliamentary Leaders, which has been and is all too successful, to work the whole nation up into a state of foam-lipped furor against the Germans, cannot conduce to wisdom in the council or valor in the field. This is not just indignation, and no profit can lie in it for Man. Neither strength to us, nor danger to the German, — save as the human may be sore bested by numberless pack.

Brutal barbarian and modern Hun, ruthless in savage atrocity; Military Autocracy, domineering of temper, bent on self-aggrandisement, destructive of freedom and seeking the tyrannous; most to be dreaded embodiment of Satanic power, whose threatened encroachments all the nations of earth should gather together to stem, fairest of the justice-loving unite with darkest minister to cut down and destroy: — Surely there are men in number, true British indeed, who have an assurance, not to be shaken by any amount of rabid clamor, that such current imagination of the German bears no manner of resemblance to German of fact; men who could fight to some purpose in a cause that was just, unmoved by campaigns of persuasion far removed from all spirit of justice; who, demanded to draw in this quarrel, thrust the blade further home in its sheath with some uttered or mute Videat Altissimus, shamed of their country's deed, appealing to their captain's Captain. Yea, mindful of and worthily obeying their earthly captain also, he, the greatest, noblest, justest of all modern men, Carlyle: Who bore witness of mightily different tenor to the German, his history, military and other organization, and whose witness they know to have been true. Wide and stable testimony by constant brother man, lucent with true heaven's inspiration; somewhat more sufficing than the Devil's Head in phosphorus — drawn, alas, upon no dungeon's walls, but gleaming hideous in souls mendacious walking freely in the daylight, profane in insolent denial of the Seer whom the Almighty sent to them. To us at least, not to them unless penitent; and may we be worthy to say to us.

CONCERT OF EUROPE.

It is very lamentable and terribly significant how widespread and genuine a persuasion has got abroad, even among the good people, that this Concert of the Powers was a sort of a sacred thing. Colors of the vulpine do often succeed in deceiving as they wittingly propose; and a righteous indignation at the vulpine, when their true motives are disclosed, may be justified. But the concurrent belauding as holy a base policy whereof the motives have been correctly announced augurs a pravity which, if it come to know truth, can have no title to be indignant, must rather confess its own guilt. Yet even here, however stern a man's recognition of the sin, he knows the too commonly irresistible influence of a general concensus in perverting those of a bias truly virtuous. Some sixteen years, or so, ago, one time when reports of Turkish atrocities in Armenia were causing such emotion in England that many were crying for armed intervention, I remember being urged to read a speech of Lord Rosebery's. A judicious wet cloth, of course, but equally of course, since by British Liberal Statesman of this epoch, not a speech astutely contrived to simply dissuade from enterprise inconvenient for Ministry occupied in concerns privately more profitable for its members; on the contrary, the sincere utterance of a man self-sympathizing with the emotion, wishful for the Turks' correction, yet arguing: Husht! Dread sequel if we stir alone; in the Concert solely is there safety and salvation. And, with such unction did he perorate, the Public, in awakened sense, holily restrained its rage for its salvation's sake, — and possibly the Turk's, not quite the Armenian's. I refused at the moment to look at the thing, pained with emotions of another kind; so far as the urger knew, never looked at it; yet did, as you see, afterwards read, in resolute suppression, and for more exact knowledge of its guessed tenor, "You should read that, my son; that is a speech everybody ought to read." About the same time the same woman said to me, upon laying down a book entitled Fire and Szuord in the Soudan, "I suppose he could not help himself, but I cannot feel any respect or sympathy for that man," the author, one Slaten, to wit. Very gently said, but she couldn't; yet thought the Rosebery address delivered in right spirit for the pulpit. How many have met the like! How many have thought the like! Too many that have innocently drunk in a belief this Concert was a sacred thing.

Yet the case of that Turkish instance was, if possible, even grosser than the subsequent Balkan ones. A dark, brutal, wretch, whatever ill he do, let no man hinder, lest his coveted den breed contention. The devil to be kept afoot in some measure; prudently maintained in possession of Eden, because the godly might fall out with one another were so lovely a spot left free to their entry. If a murderous thief have money in his pocket, or in the bank, let every constable be wary; never dare to run him in, unless secure the Judges are agreed on how to share the spoil. In Decorum's name, what is a little outrage in the streets compared to quarrel on the Bench? The results of that are too frightful to contemplate. Hasty zeal would defeat its own end, destroy the very means of bringing offender to judgment; for without a judicious unanimity no lawful verdict were obtainable. Lawful verdicts are frequently unobtainable, sometimes too obtainable; and justice never reached so, yet capable of being done and left for verdict. Methinks, if man might seriously question, Have I real errand to correct this particular and so distant abuse? the question. Shall I wait on Concert with the covetous to do it? would be out of his debate. And yet I honor policy, and know the multiple involute of practical fact. There, however, it is clear, had the dubitating (and dubious) Knight Errant stood wholly out, the covetous neighbors, with or without some brush of comparatively trifling battle, would long since have contrived to share in some tolerable manner; the Balkans in whole have settled themselves the better without the meddling of such a disinterested umpire.

Truly, Prince von Kaunitz Reitberg's text, that Great Courts should understand one another, then the Small would be less troublesome, has found fat mother to breed in, and grown enormously since his day; ever the more pronounced virtuously assured of morality, up to the very moment of catastrophe from the start inevitable for it. For it? Perhaps not. The text may be meet enough for unscrupulous voracious fellow; have a real truthfulness to nature there, be well allowed by heaven, and run on to happy fulfillment so far. Voracity may be perfectly veracious; and I never blame a shark for swallowing small fry with his utmost gusto. The sight of half a dozen sharks gracefully maneuvering in Concert, for the more dexterous satisfaction of several appetites, may also have its own seemliness, the gastric desires of highest mortal confess a certain sympathy. But for creatures that have once guessed themselves made in their Maker's image, to whom a sense of the infinite of right and wrong has announced that the gaining of the whole world could not profit if achieved in treason to that image; — for them to take such text as maxim for International Policy! Why I do not know that they ever did it; only the sharks having heard tell of them, then find it expedient to deliberately cloak greed in show of holiness, and imagine they can work injustice the more securely by professing care of equity; whilst a huge medley of others add their votes, variously persuaded that this is the solution: For whom catastrophe is inevitable; because they build on no truth, neither on appetite or intelligence, but on a lying compound, beast man and god alike disown, which nothing in nature will support.

May not a Small nation have just or unjust cause of quarrel, reasonable or unreasonable claim or pretension, as much as a Great? And what valid title can the Great ever have to step in and say: We will decide your disputes and your claims and in all things you shall do as we bid? O damned canaille, jealous of classes superior, yelping distracted at each hint or suspicion of one law for Rich and another for Poor, sworn all as one man that that shall be the rule in law International! Your skins are precious to you and your corpora stink. In the ideal possibilities, where the Great loved the truth and sought to do justice alone, court of their convening might be a godly tribunal, very blessed to see upon earth; and, whatever security their power gave to its meetings, lent to enforce its judgments, most sure it is that the consideration Great or Little? would weigh pure zero in determining right to a seat on the bench. Is this the thing we have seen? No; nor so much as endeavored toward. But, in clear sight of utterly diverse fact, the beneficence that would attach to this has been pretended for that diverse, — which, also, as shall shortly be referred to, could have had an honest place. Conclave of the Powerful assembled to find how their own mutual jealousies set on edge by debates 'mong the less, — glowering one at another, Take that side, if you dare; by God I'll take this if you do — may reach compromise without wager of battle, the Small be compesced into accepting the awards so arrived at; and is one of the most unblessed things very certainly seen upon earth. Yes, this is the thing we have seen these last thirty years and longer, growing ever the more confident to its inevitable result. Parties there have been in England and elsewhere, very vehement for the justice, or what they thought it, yet even these have all subscribed to the prime need of Concert; admitted it were better that wrong should be done than peace 'tween the Mighty put in danger of rupture. Here, at any rate, no shadow of a plea can be found that these things were done by closeted few, the nations not witting. What the articles agreed upon each time were, what dexterous management was exercised to reach them, may be an esoteric mystery; but what spirit wrought has been broadly visible and universally sanctioned. In England most eminently. Speeches upon speeches in Parliament and out, without respect of party; all the newspapers in leading articles; and table talk in each private household; — the argument has been everywhere the same. I know no instance of National Policy so overwhelmingly endorsed, in full sight of its true essence; up to that last speech at the outbreak, when Sir Edward Grey, — he would not have had the Peace of Europe jeopardized for Servia. Aye, Sir Edward has been very consistent in this, and outspoken; long since and constantly made it evident as could be 'twas fundamentally accepted in his Policy the weak must go to the wall rather than important persons suffer; merely Quixotic to hope otherwise. Of course! And God forbid he'd mammer scrupulous on such a point. Then, if the case of Belgium touch you nearer, step forth pure champion of the Small, in righteous zeal. The soul of man is sick at the sodden hypocrisy; could find the deeds smell sweeter if done in conscious perfidy of the cunning. And the newspapers hope that, when the war is over, the Concert may be reestablished in such firmness any little nation attempting to draw free breath shall instantly be throttled impotent: They must never be allowed to provoke such disasters again. It does not strike you that they have just as good a right to bustle in the world as any of the Big? That, if the Big fall a-quarrelling in sequel, the crime is their own wholly; the true peril in their disposition so to do, and unremovable while that remains?

None worth the name of man but must know beyond all question that the sole thing which can give a nation right to set up for Judge in another's quarrel is the resolution to do justice in it. Court convened to arbitrate on matters in dispute and primarily devoted to the maintenance of peace among the Arbiters! Could there be a thing more impious than this? What amazed execration would greet it, if proposed for settlement of the least sixpenny matter between private litigants! Yet seen International applauded with unction by every man, woman and youth; anathema only for any not zealous for such first aim, the very need for which invalidates for umpire's seat and of necessity turns the Court into one for iniquity's sanction.

Such has too terribly been the fact, and damnable. Yet we said that a fact very diverse from the professed Beneficent Arbitration could have honestly been. It is obvious that parties extraneous to an original dispute may have interests of every degree of gravity affected by that dispute; may confer together for peaceable solution of those interests; if unable to reach it, may each choose mediators; and, if still at a deadlock, an umpire. Likewise that parties extraneous to the original dispute and to the cross interests of the secondaries directly affected may have interests of every degree of gravity affected by division among the secondaries, and so ad infinitum, till there be in reality no party without interest; and conference for peaceable solution the more desirable than ever: In which reckoning, it may be worth remarking that the jumping of a flea is, in logical sequence, at all times competent to set the whole world by the ears; and wisdom, accordingly, somewhat chary how it claims interest affected. Clearly enough, the sole valid basis for those conferences among the Great Powers upon Balkan affairs was adjustment of their own differences arising through interests affected. Every man knows that nothing else ever called them into existence; that they were always in reality convened to, if possible, prevent quarrel among the Great, not for unbiassed decision in equity by them of disputes among the Small; that the pretence of a God's vice-regency by Major in Concert over Minor inclined to division was a pretence palpable, which fear alone ever led any to accredit holy. If those Conferences had been informed wholly by a spirit of greedy cunning, each party diligent for private end, they might have had their dog's day; and noble statesman kept rigorously out. For that is the law: you are not bound to have a finger in every pie; and, if you cannot interfere for good, shall not interfere at all, but leave the coil to its strugglings and such issue as the high o'er-ruling Providence may have for it.  

If honest (and thereby alone truly valid), the Conference must have Justice for its first aim every whit as much as Court of arbitration; and steady refusal to force that on the less which nothing save the jealousies of the Great demands. Noble Briton, entering such Conference, might indeed have prayed heaven to grant him a tactful sagacity, fine delicacy of manipulation and a solid understanding of the doable, much more and primarily to grant him insight into the veritable right and wrong of the matters, well knowing that nothing built on miss of this could have a chance to stand, that completest Concert attained in defiance of this would infallibly prove exceedingly disconcerting. He would have utterly abhorred the accursed doctrine of the Great's right to interfere because Great, and rejected all plans based on such a supposition. Would have known, too, that, if the strong hand can sometimes parcel States, it is forever impotent to create one: That can never be done at external dictation; what nation is to be a nation must spring by nature's generation, spontaneous in a self-vitality, self-fending, self-coherent, being and expanding by its own innate powers. Ah me! This manufacturing of States, autonomous Albanias, what not, Belgium itself for that matter, with their frontiers marked, constitutions supplied, and kings (God save the mark!) all ready chosen for them, according to model pleasing to the grandiose disposers: — it awakens thoughts we must not go into; and, any time, I would rather leave the blindest rages free to their havoc than be one in framing such a mock settlement, fraught with far deadlier havoc.

Yea, noble Briton, unable to do or to obtain justice for the Small, had sooner left them to try their own strengths than been a party to unjust compulsions. If he could not defend them from wrongful aggressions, restrictions, had sorrowfully stood aside, sooner than lent these his sanction. And if he could not have found acceptance as mediator between the Big concerning their interests affected, had similarly left them to fight it out, rather than won the crown as Peacemaker by Concert in sacrifice of the Lesser's rights. In all ways, he had stood for Justice, wrought for it, and, in such resolution, had seen the justice in some measure, as without it never; whether active or passive, had found a manful course. But, with Peace the first aim, all was naturally very different, and honorable action never possible. Man authentically actuated by that aim only is in practical deed a powerless entity. Peace! Peace! For God's sake. Peace! Lest I get involved, might seem contemptible too; — but not to most, when cried by a man very able to fight and adding — at any cost to those little nuisances. Had Sir Edward Grey wished peace for peace's sake he had been a nullity and thing helpless to further the least agreement; had he cared particularly for justice he might have found himself an alien spirit, still more futile to preserve peace this day; but, being heartily desirous to prevent war for reasons highly intelligible to the rest, he often did patch up matters by expedients of the moment, each time worsening the fact and rendering ultimate rupture the more certain. My fleets and armies are in readiness and I can be truculent enow, but, Gentlemen, War for such a casus! Come, hit on some reasonable apportionment of shares, or all forego. And then to some the casus was not so distant, insignificant, as to him. And when did a heaven-blessed Amity result from the like of this?

Concert of Europe, how these latter decades has this been impressed on us! The just of every nation eyeing in silence, with reflections too awful for utterance. Platform and pulpit, every shade of opinion, zealous in sacred insistence, breath bated in fear: O ye nations called Small! God damn you, be quiet, lest the Peace of the Great be disturbed. Was there ever a doubt that the Lord of Eternity, so besought to preserve them from quarrel, would answer the Great by letting loose all their furies to ravin the worse for every stave till the morrow?

OSTENSIBLE CAUSES.

It is naturally the custom of a nation's Leaders, when they announce war on its behalf, to make some sort of public statement of the Causes which have determined them to take so grave a step; and the rarer case that the true causes are so much as touched upon in such Ostensible account of them. Very often the reasons given are so totally inadequate (to say naught else) you might marvel how any one could put them forth as explanation to be credited; why the Peoples so addressed do not instantly reply: We will not hazard life or limb for these hiccups. Yet it is not the People's custom to answer so: They usually accept the reasons given as affording convincing grounds for deeds and sacrifices so glaringly disproportioned it looks an inconceivable credulity; by many of the more philosophic, regarded perennially as a sort of bedlam possession. And no doubt it considerably is so; yet far from wholly. Blind stampede and wild unreason of mob, with brute love of war, fascination and glamor of exploit, ever is in it; yet also greatly more. Even the enthusiastic chorus, reiterating the helpless reasons offered as beyond gainsaying, springs not altogether from simpleness, nor readiness to seize excuse, but from an instinct of a vast unspoken behind, at least belief there must be this. Yea, without conviction, persuasion, or imagination of a true infinite at stake, which in the name of manhood commands no cost be weighed, the nations never fall a-battling. Idea of a supreme Duty, whether radiant in clear intelligence, turbid, confused, or diabolically opposite, is always there; and even the cunning who seek to provoke wars for their own ends, cannot do so unless this be in some way excited: Its presence is a necessity; but, if not intelligent, it can be traded on. The very day before war was declared between Great Britain and Germany, newspapers were declaiming it an unthinkable absurdity, monstrous to suggest; and next day were for it in whole heart and so much of soul as they may be supposed to possess. Nor is that phenomenon purely one of the weathercock, the essence of whose utility is well known to be instant amenability to wind however changeful; a better ingredient in the recognition that division, the least word of debate, is perilous in such circumstances, and a loyal trust in the Leaders requisite for nations' being. Would that men knew it equally in peace, for it is equally true then; and reflect on the really awful responsibility they owe for their choice of Leaders. Exceedingly foolish, superficial is the notion too, that wars are ever caused by trifles; the wiser know that the causes are always fully adequate, perfectly proportioned in fact, could mortal trace them. No mortal can trace them, and the proclamation of Ostensible is never blameworthy because that way "inadequate"!

Granting that the Ostensible rarely touch upon the Real, they remain noteworthy, were it only as indications of the degree of intelligence. They may be subterfuges wittingly concocted by wile, or stolidities of inarticulate honesty that cannot speak its meaning. Neither is it to be forgotten that the highest true could as little really name his cause. Cause fully declarable were by the hypothesis, shallow and trivial. For, never is it the thing predicated, but the enormous sequels which hang by it; and comprehension of these intuitive tacit in faith. Nevertheless the Leaders ought to know to some extent, and who has the intuitive perception does; never will the reasons rendered by these be contrary to the fact, however limited in account of it. Well, the British Ostensible Causes are set forth in a certain White Paper familiar to all men, and to which the leaders refer as authorized statement of their "Case." While Sir E. T. Cook has volunteered an elucidated abbreviation fearlessly entitled Why Britain is at War. No man's breath appears to have been taken away; but, for my part, my audacity would not reach to this. How we picked quarrel; or how we closed with the offer of it; or how we were forced into it; these are Madams (if you know your Kingsley) you may hope to scrape some acquaintance with in those pages of My Lords Ambassadors' despatches; but, as to bosoming with My Lady Why, 'tis to be doubted she is not quite so free a wench. Happily there is no question that the paper, so far as it does go, is authentic; and as we say, interesting chiefly as showing degree of veracity. For absence of wile will not make a thing honest; deliberate wile can be truer than a systemic mendaciousness, which, never expressly uttering falsehood, yet speaks and acts habitually from assumptions that are baseless. It is not true, for instance, that you sought peace with your neighbor, if determined on war unless he behaved himself according to a prescription drawn up as suitable to your needs and conveniences merely; no industrial zeal, most passionate pleading to persuade to keep within the bounds set, will prevent your being, in that case, most essentially the Aggressor. And the knave who made the prescriptions purposely to provoke war might readily stand in closer contact with truth than the wight who expected to preserve order by publicly announcing a law of conduct for those wholly without his jurisdiction. If he have only privately registered the rule, too, and, half conscious of its presumptuous absurdity, shrink from declaring it till the last moment compel, his pleading may easily be the more passionate, so that he sit down in tears to cry Pity! God witness I did all I could; but his workings are pitiful, can only prove the more disastrous through "good" intentions less subtle perfide then simply disjoined from fact's realm.

Of the Austro-Servian matter with which this White Paper, so confidently referred to as exhibiting Britain's "Case," commences, we have not much to say; The Justice of the dispute was confessedly no cause of Britain's action; and I, personally, could not hold myself competent to speak a word on it: do not know that at all. This, however, I do know; namely, that, whether the launching of her Ultimatum by Austria was wise or unwise, its wording prudent or imprudent, if the charges made in it were true, then, certainly Austria had valid ground for most drastic action; and nothing save the complete submission of Servia could have given her security against a continuance of the alleged offences. Alleged offences which if true were wholly intolerable, inexcusable, and very great forbearance — godly insufferance or fractious compelled — shown in enduring them so long. And, if one own to something more than scepticism of Austrian political integrity generally, that would only make one the more insist on no hindrance if she had right in a particular instance. Every fair-minded man must have felt that if these charges were true, not necessarily in each detail specified but generically in whole spirit imputed, then Austria had full title to chastise with the armed hand; and would rather have guarded her from interference than been a party to it. Therefore, whosoever in any way challenged her action could only in probity do so if justified in calling the truth of the charges in question. Peculiarly futile was it to run up crying Delay! for God's sake, delay, and moderate your tone, when it was obvious that if the charges were true the time for delay or moderation was long past. If Britain, idle knight-errant with no business of her own to look after, wished to act on that score she should have acted years before. Alas! we all know she had; and added vexation enough, not so Quixotically neither, for the wound, as expediently for far other subjects. Sancho's stomach made one sufficing trial of his master's Balsam, wambled at the mere snuff ever after: Can you wonder then, if Austria at length grew squeamish of Grey Powder for every ill she had a mind to mend?

When Servia, after shuffle and enquiry round, replied to the Ultimatum, our Sir Edward swore he'd never seen a nation make a more prostrate salaam to truculent Bashaw. To which I fear the answer is: It had much of that character, and was a thing of paper; very fit to rank among Ostensibles: And, showing more suppleness in performing a required kowtow than sincerity in penitence, gave properly no assurance of a better loyalty in future deed. Nothing in that nominal submission offered hope of stable working; and, of course it is one way evident that, once things had reached this pass, nothing short of the almost miraculous could. Since, if the charges were untrue the party who made them was bent on mischief and would take no answer; whilst, if true, the party of whom they were true would have needed to do a considerable conversion before becoming able to make reply of such radically different tenor as could have seemed to Man a ground to try anew upon. I think these are facts, and in Sir Edward Grey's despatches there is not the slightest recognition of them: Which, whether he believed the first alternative or the second or the more probable compound of both, there assuredly should have been. Intense pleading these is in those despatches. But it is all prompted by absolutely self-interested motives; flows not from care of Austria's welfare or of Servia's, but of our own skin's solely; owes its fervency to the heart text: Mercy on us! Hold your hand you, bow down t'other, both accept shadow for substance, lest your differences breed a brawl of wider compass wherein we should not 'scape. It was Sir E. Grey's duty to look after our interests; and, if he meddled in this foreign matter, the first law for that was to see the facts of it and conform to them; there could be no hope in resource which flew in the teeth of them. But the dread of cataclysm misled, as fear, even makes men traitors to themselves and all mankind. Moreover, it was no case of a normal integrity erring in one instance, but of a quite habitual attempt to build on the untenable, to safeguard by methods essentially mendacious, howsoever, persuaded of needful expediency or claiming regard of common welfare.

For, for Great Britain, on her own initiative, uninvited, to write any despatch to Austria on her Servian affair was in reality an indefensible proceeding; and every man knows that Britain herself would be the last to suffer the like from another. Had any nation presumed to offer us advice in any of our numerous disputes with little states or big what sort of answer should we have made? You all know it; A peremptory injunction never to repeat the like insolence under penalty. It is, indeed, a flatly impossible position this, that self-fending independent states shall be perpetually prevented from managing their own disputes without consult of neighbors. A thing justly intolerable to the states so checked. (And, on the other side, however prone the big may be to bully, to enchant the arm of power from its natural exercise is sure to prove a cherishing of license.) When done, as here on the plea of You mustn't, lest we others get to loggerheads, reduced to the extremity of impious absurdity. Doubtless the far-seeing, equitable, sagacious Ruler would recognize the existence of such mad notions in his neighbors' heads, and weigh them; but he above all others would know the notions to be baseless delusions, vicious in origin, pernicious in act; would proceed on his own business none the less, whether in wary evasion or open contempt. The more ordinary, so beshouted to stop, would, if he deigned to look over his shoulder at all, merely rejoin: "you will fight with each other, say you? That is surely your affair. I wish you good luck, and may God salve your wits, for they need it more than your wounds will." — Most clearly, to continually prevent the settlement of disputes is to create a danger immeasurably greater than any their fiercest let could have brought about; and if others get to quarrel in sequel the responsibility thereof rests on their own heads. Austria has to answer to God for the justice of her war upon Servia; but not therefore for the European War.

According to the White Paper, Germany's Ostensible attitude toward this Austro-Servian matter was that Austria had the right to manage in it as she herself thought fit, and no other a title to interfere: This was, in fact, the only right attitude , unless you were constituted Judge of the dispute, or had good grounds and duty to challenge the justice of Austria's action; and if, as one hopes and believes, the Ostensible was so far the Real, there is not a word can be said against it. The one straight forward manful cause there was for third parties not directly concerned. Britain, whatever her thought or resolution for subsequent developments, possible, probable, or certain, ought thus far to have taken the same; and had she done so, there would have been a different tale to tell in the subsequent developments. Simple refusal to be a Busybody. Nor need such passive role, in case liable to grow complicated, be a whit the less simply this because he who takes it is, as he should be, alive to the complexities also, ready for action in them, if they do result. Sir E. T. Cook, seeking the sinister, full of a preconceived belief of it, repeats with exclamation mark, her minister's statement that Germany very well knew what she was about in so "Backing up Austria," said "backing" consisting in what the English call a traitorous refusal to unite with them in forbidding Austria to manage her own concerns. Has it really, then, become a sin to a Briton that a man should know what he is doing? It often almost seems so. The most dangerous crime, at least, and surest mark of nefarious proclivity to say one thing and not mean another; safety and virtue alone in those transparent mendacities — Which, since all men see through them, cannot surely be hypocrisies? — whereby our Faith and Policy are kept secure from ravin and inspiration alike. For my part, I devoutly hope that Germany did know what she was doing, though the sequel have proved beyond mortal forecast. Let her have courage; for, if so, the ultimate issue may likewise prove beyond mortal's hope. But Germany was the only one that took this course; and took it, we will hope, in a courageous simplicity. Quarrel not with the word; or do so to your heart's content. Took it, we will hope, in faithfulness to the fact; and the more awake to and prepared for the probable consequences the greater credit to her. Boundless clamor there at once was and continues to be that she took it in duplicity; clamor originating in presupposition to that effect, and up to the present not, that I know of, supported by a shred of evidence. For the notable thing to me in these despatches is that those of the German bear the impress of veracity; they alone are not condemnable on self-evidence, but cohere together consistently throughout as the words of men that, in spite of limitations, did essentially mean one thing before God and the same thing before men; which is not true of those of any of the others. Of these others so far as we may meetly speak:

The Russian ground was different; had nothing to do with the damned plea of Peace! Lest we quarrel; based itself on claim of weighty interests directly affected, in short, of being a party to the dispute and not an outsider at all. Even without this, and in a total disregard of the justice of the dispute, it could have a certain validity: Two fall ajar; a third says Let them fight it out; a fourth, No, I'll join in: All these might have solid foothold in the wide realms of nature's truth, intelligent or lustful; but he who cries, and in the name of an intelligent humanity cries, Stop! Stop! you over there, lest I and others, leagues distant from you and unconcerned in your debate, should fall out with one another. What ground has he to stand on? Vacuity. A very meddlesome fellow, you would say, and one seeking a currying with a diligence not easily matched. But for the Russian: If his intervention was primarily directed against Austria only, which of us is there can say he had no right to appear on the field and try what he could do there? One does not know. Moreover one allows to the half-barbarous, inarticulate, a sort of brute right to try propensities — no curtailment of another's right to drub him well for trying them and so teach the animal becoming manners — such as, to those who have ever known higher law, one could by no means allow.

But, as far as this Austro-Servian matter went, there it should have stopped. Nothing in it was cause of the spread of the war beyond. That Balkan troubles would issue in war between Austria and Russia was probable, or as good as certain; but, if other nations made alliances which would bring them into conflict in that event, they have themselves alone to thank for it.

[admin]

Part 3 of 5

The question, therefore, here arises Did Germany's Alliance with Austria necessarily bring her in if Russia came in? If the answer to that be affirmative, Germany smarts for having made such alliance. The answer has been universally concluded affirmative; yet only in those mad assumptions of international compacts whereby, in infallible sequel, every flea's jump was to set the world on fire. Concluded affirmative? Yes, and with equal readiness negative; according to which assumption suited the righteous British arguer's mood at the moment. If the terms of the Triple Alliance made the answer affirmative, how stands Italy out, and unheaped with opprobrium by a Britain so virtuously indignant at treaty breakers? You know very well that the use you make of this is based on the assumption the answer is negative. Sir E. Grey's pleadings, reported in despatch forty-six (see later, page 545), also presuppose the negative, though the Briton there arguing that, by the International Compacts, Germany was not bound to support Austria if attacked by Russia was simultaneously allowing that France was bound to support Russia if attacked by Germany! So far as this question, of Germany's alliance with Austria compelling her support against Russia, is shrouded in doubt, the uncertainty is due to the inextricable interlacements and difficulty of separating one thing from so many others simultaneous. What slender testimony the White Paper offers is against an affirmative: Germany would not mobilize if Russia only mobilized in South, i.e., against Austria alone. And, in truth, there is again no evidence that Germany would have entered if a reasonable assurance existed that the war could lie between Russia and Austria merely; on the contrary, the evidence is that she would not, but knew this too hypothetical a case to dwell on.

Assuming the negative, namely no treaty bond, as the British did when it suited them, Germany were only condemnable for her armed intervention if: (1) She had no title by the complexion of the present case. On which Britain argued: Please don't have any; because France, with confessedly none, must be allowed to have full (See pp. 546-547). (2) If Russia was verily not meditating hostility to her also. And the poverty of these White Paper despatches for throwing any certain light on that point is too palpable; they are here too exclusively Ostensible! We do not however require any despatches to tell us that many and weighty matters existed between Germany and her huge Eastern neighbor, nor that she would in any event be very closely touched by a war between that country and Austria. That her sympathies, apart from all her Alliances, would in general be with Austria rather than Russia, and that her interest would similarly cause her to lean the same way, are likewise foregone conclusions. It may be added also, that such bias was in the main accordant with justice and the true ever-living interests of man, though of this we have more to say under Alliances. In the particular instance, by the evidence before us, such as it is, there is no ground to doubt that Germany sincerely wished peace between Russia and Austria, much more sincerely than we wished peace with her; nor that her action was in essence defensive against Russian Aggressive; some momentary gleam of a possibility of standing out, if properly guaranteed, swiftly swallowed in the certainty that no guarantee would be given. A passing thought of guarantee from Russia saving spread of war, standing in strong contrast with France's eager prestatement she would take none from Germany! A request for self-security vastly different from the demands which Britain subsequently made of the Germans! Who never said to Russia: You, offering not even the color of violence to me, seeking my friendship rather, shall only engage with your foe on terms of my dictating; whether vanquished or victor shall, in conclusion, go home again with nothing save your labor for your trouble: He has not yet reached these depths of sanctimonious effrontery. Then, leaving the assumption of no bond or predetermination and granting that Germany had made express treaty to support Austria, or from the start of the Servian dispute, was resolved to support Austria if interfered with in that, who is there can say she was wrong? Britain, of all nations on earth, by her own conduct in the further developments here, has the least title to breathe a whisper in criticism of such determination to support a neighbor.

With Germany involved the war could still have remained in the East; nothing save France's action brought it into the West. But, before proceeding to that, look at these despatches pleading for peace between Austria and Russia, for Germany not to support the former.

For the first: They are all identical in spirit with those pleading for peace between Austria and Servia. The one argument submits that dispute to the Powers' decision. And we have already said enough of that; need not express our pious thankfulness that, whatever followed, this was not again done. Russia would have been willing for it, and it is made guilt in the two Teutonic nations that they were not. The four to whom the decision was to be left were Britain, France, Italy and Germany; Three of those four had already pronounced adversely to the Austrian: Much fairness did the Slav show! Leave it to the Powers again, who have so often happily damped it down before and ever to spring in renewed vigor to-morrow. The Chairman Power glorying in utter contempt of the justice of the quarrel; the minority of one alone having ever expressed the least care for this. It is Germany's steady refusal to be again a party to such godless futility that is the one thing the human mind can dwell on without loathing. Help me to save the peace, said the Briton. With all my heart; and earnestly did her endeavor to further reason among the parties, ownful of unreason in her ally too, yet aware of the iron limits. Britain wished peace by patching up the matter anyhow, lest fire kindled scorch her own pretty complexion: Germany wrought for peace on solid basis, prepared to take the issues if it proved unattainably solid: Which is really the criminal?

For the second: If there be any truly British, in the grand old sense when the word was synonymous with soul of fair play, straightness in dealing, generous frankness to foe as to friend, and, however completely now shut out from smallest voice in their nation's deeds, one cannot but believe there still are such men, these, in their study of our White Paper, must early have been struck with a certain thing, which, as they realized its proportions and significance, might have filled them with amazed horror and indignation, had their knowledge otherwise gained of modern British Statesmanship left room for amazement or special indignation at any trick it played in slippery cunning or course it pursued openly in persuasion of magnanimity devoid of integrity. What I refer to is the proposals made by Russia, France, and Italy that Britain should declare her solidarity with the two former, unite with them three, or two, in menace of Germany; and the way those proposals were listened and replied to by Britain. The proposal is first made strongly in despatch number six and repeatedly after. Pray announce your determination to fight along with us if Germany persist in countenancing Austria; and, in the face of such a threat, she will at once cower out: It will be in the interests of peace that you should do so. Sterling Briton, thus addressed, had, in tone of sleeping thunder half awakened, answered: Silence! sirrahs. And immediately informed the German of the Proposal: There, sir, friend or foe, know by this your neighbors' tempers, what sort of impartial hearing they are prepared to give your Ally's case. And do you suppose the German did not know the proposals had been made; what sort of answer they actually got; find himself enlightened, if further enlightenment he needed, as to British sincerity in sequent suggestions made to him? Pinchbeck Briton, all gold to the eye, did not fall in with the proposals, much less answer as above. He received them in very friendly manner; courteously explained his discreet opinion that the interests of peace would be better served if he continued to enact the role of disinterested party; and — well, continued to enact in such fashion now fully transparent to all eyes friendly or hostile. A behavior thoroughly accordant with decadent English character and solely possible to men steeped to the bone in mendacity, swallowed in the blackest of terrestrial curses, the Apotheosis of Attorneyism; gaining for itself also the unanimous endorsement of the masses (similarly saturate) as perfection in any role does. It is second nature to an attorney to plead with passion, 'real' for the moment by his brief, even in full knowledge of facts contrary; and the Prime Minister, later, for his objects, named some German proposals infamous; yet have I met no Briton who knew these to be so.

And, in fact they were not. In the circumstances, it was nothing perfidious for France and Russia to beg: Unmistakably announce your determination to fight along with us — since you are so determined. No, gentle Allies — Beg pardon! -- No, loving members of an Entente uncommitted, we must maintain the fiction, — Alas! I stumble again. For of course it was no fiction. Of course not, said they. And Husht! Messieurs. Who said I was determined to fight along with you? We see, said they. Who doubts they saw? It were a dolt indeed that did not. Yet naturally persisted, in the firmer confidence accrued, to urge their view; it being merely a difference in opinion as to Ostensibles, the reality understood to mutual satisfaction. So Russia "deplored" the effect upon Germany of a notion that Britain would stand aside; and Grey soothed with a Pooh! Is there not dumb show enough in our fleet? Plenty of dumb show and very easy to read. While France, no wise abashed by the comforting answer, contentedly toed the line set by susceptibilities of British Conscience; and passed on to discuss preparations in common for war — of course only in the hypothetic possibility of your deciding to join us: We will not again press you for any more definite assurance on that head. Most unnecessary that you should. Messieurs. No, the proposals were not infamous. Yet I know of few things better meriting the description than the answers they got.

Among other things that might provoke amazement, but too sorrowfully cannot, is despatch 46 where Sir E. Grey reports his having had the impudence to "Observe" to the German Ambassador "that if Germany assisted Austria against Russia it would be because without any reference to the merits of the dispute (italics ours) Germany could not afford to see Austria crushed." This in face of the clear fact that Germany alone had ever expressed care for the justice of the dispute, and had at the very start plainly stated her belief that Austria had good grounds for her proceedings against Servia, and ought not to be interfered with in them. Sir Edward Grey himself, meanwhile, having ever unblushingly expressed a total indifference to the justice of the dispute; and in another despatch of the same date. Number forty-eight, reiterates that if Austria could satisfy Russia she might do what she liked with Servia. Merit of the dispute! Sop Russia and damn the merit; it is the want of that sop alone that affects me. — I said before, page 541, that this observation of Grey's presupposed belief in no treaty bond of Germany to Austria: It obviously ought, but I would not take oath it did: and if it was that Germany "could not afford to see Austria crushed" how heinous must such a casus belli seem to every Briton now fighting lest France should be!

Britain, enacting the impartial role and rejecting the comparatively straightforward course proposed by France and Russia, that of a united menace, had her own ideas as to how to persuade Germany not to support Austria; of which the last paragraph affords one sample. And, in our inquiry of veracity shown, the results continue shameful to this land of our nativity, forbidden veneration. For it argues that Germany should not support Austria without ever arguing, or, as I should more strictly put it, without ever having argued, that France should not support Russia. This could only pass at all if the treaty between France and Russia was much more definite than that between Germany and Austria: I have met nothing worth regard that builds on this assumption. Allow that Germany acted more by the present case, will Britain call this less reputable than act by pledge to fight regardless of present cases? That Britain which professed free hand and gloried in the right to decide by instant merits in each conjuncture. But the truth is that this has passed with the hasty mob through a fact of sequence which a moment's reflection shows you did not affect the matter in the slightest degree, could never by deliberate statesman have been imagined to do so. France would not enter the field unless Germany did. No, nor Germany unless Russia did. This fact, that France was to be the third stepper, Germany the second does not touch the matter here at issue, namely the integrity or wisdom of either in entering. Britain deliberately besought Germany to leave her Ally undefended if attacked and never the while so much as whispered suggestion to France that she should similarly leave her Ally in the lurch; yet whatsoever applied to the one case applied with equal force to the other. Nay, with much greater force! For Germany was necessarily closely touched by war between Austria and Russia, France not by war between Russia and Germany, far removed from her borders. Moreover there is very strong prima facie evidence that except for her confident assurance of France's support, Russia would never have done aught provocative to Germany, that, had there been no such assurance, the war might have remained between Russia and Austria. Still Britain kept arguing with Germany Don't you, convinced of justice in your Ally's quarrel, support her, yet never said a word of similar import to France; knew fully from the start, as all the world did, for this was public property and known to be without an if, that France was definite to strike in: nothing save that knowledge produced the pleading: As I said before (p. 542) the plea was Forego your title because France must be allowed full tether for hers. A long tether? Ay, and a strong, could haul the whole British Empire in. One sees not what business Britain had to suggest either that Germany should not support Austria or France Russia, but to urge the first without the second was totally indefensible. If we had right to plead so with either, then overwhelmingly the greater right to plead with France; because of the mighty obligations which our statesmen well knew, though the country at large did not, she was under to us; in reality, only daring to act as she did from confidence of British cover. Finally, of this, be it clear that I am not suggesting it was really possible for Britain, in those late hours, to demand of France, to hint to France, that she should not support Russia; but the fact that is was impossible made it perfidy in her to ask the passivity she did from the German.

Proceeding now to the question of French intervention; also of Britain's sincerity of wish that the war should remain in the East: With Germany involved, of which question we have already spoken, it is, of course, palpably undeniable that nothing except a declaration of neutrality by France could have prevented war in the West; and equally undeniable that such declaration would. Here, in the case of war in the Western theatre, it is perfectly certain that the French and the English were the aggressors, that Germany acted as compelled for self-defence. By the circumstances, absolutely no manner of call lay upon France to join in: Word pledged to Russia is the utmost she can plead. I say not that the word pledged should not be sacred, but bid you note that there was absolutely no other ground. If any mortal believe that the word was either given or kept for God's sake, why afflict his innocence? And therewith we will leave France's share to her own conscience.

But, on the no-question of France or Germany the aggressor, add: France, toeing the line to suit susceptibilities of British conscience and bettering instruction, kept ten kilometers from her frontiers after mobilization; and, anticipating demand of neutrality from Germany, as known not aggressive upon her, had many times stated she would never give it. Yet, by these delicacies of manoeuver has persuaded you of her lamblike intentions, Germany's wanton inroad, in character of devouring wolf? — And of the eleventh hour treble Peace still! Both Russia and Austria have consented, so exquisitely set off to an admiring audience by these French trippings on the light fantastic toe, what other word than simply Too late! Germany could not possibly pause then on any plea of further discussion. Delay would have been extremely advantageous to every other, her Ally included; to herself perilous. What sort of sincerity there was in the Austrian consent you have but to read despatch one hundred and forty-one to know; one hundred and thirty-nine for Russia's humor to Germany in her consent, aforesaid very cheap. With such odors regaling her nostrils, Germany would have been a nose of wax indeed to pause. The plea was the old accursed futility of submit the Austro-Servian matter to the Powers for settlement, with certainly no increase of likelihood that a peaceable patch up till to-morrow would be once more arrived at. A ground for suspension which none honorable could then have made to the German; which no German who knew what's what could at that hour do other than totally disregard. That, in a straight courteous manfulness, compliance was explained impossible is creditable, for the suggestion might justly have been altogether ignored.

For England's sincerity of wish that the war should remain in the East:

Alas! it is a sort of mockery to speak of sincerity in her doings here. Yet I grant that, when the inevitable sequel of his acts comes upon a man, he may often wish intensely enough that they could be avoided, and exhibit a spectacle of very strenuous zeal in that direction. England, in a full knowledge that France had engaged herself to Russia, entered into what you call an Entente, with her. Not an Alliance? Oh no! Count Bruhl, a famishing dog in sight of a too dangerous leg of mutton, long comforted himself he had never signed anything; but this did not help him out of Pirna, if considerably into. Maria Theresa, too, with troops ready massed on the border and Allies on march, when demanded Would she attack him (Friedrich) this year or next? Replied vaguely in limbo, swore the Partition Treaty against him non-extant, a thing of his own imagination merely. Whereon, Carlyle comments: Since she would have shuddered at the lie direct, I suppose it was not on paper; but truer in fact no treaty could be. Had England ever honestly wrought that war in the East of Europe should not cause war in the West, she would have used her endeavors to induce France to terminate her Alliance with Russia; for this Alliance was the standing menace, and sole cause why war in the East should provoke war in the West. Had England ever wrought that she herself should not be involved in war through war in the East, she would have absolutely refused to enter into any arrangement with France so long as her alliance with Russia existed; would have made the termination of that alliance an inexorable sine qua non before she put herself under any species of obligation to assist France. These are certain facts, wholly indisputable. But England was possessed with a dread of German Aggression, to the blinding of her eyes and the corruption of her heart: equally by them. And she wrought persistently in favor of mighty Combination which should effectually checkmate German evil intentions. Not wishful of war, If you please so to describe it, passionately desirous to preserve peace. And hoping to do so by raising such a formidable looking barrier all round the Bad Teuton that he would never dare to try breaking it, but die in sight of victuals like goose surrounded by a circle drawn with chalk. For never yet were the counsels of men with such an aim informed by wisdom but always have their plans been shady, and their workings brought upon them the thing they chiefly sought to avoid.

Last, in these Ostensibles, is Britain's Intervention.

Let us look first, though it does not come first in time, at that peculiar offer made by Sir Edward Grey which has been applauded, by Sir. E. T. Cook among others, as a sort of acme in magnanimous generosity, and sealing proof of intents charitable. It is in despatch number one hundred and one where Grey offers thus: "If the peace of Europe can be preserved and the present crisis safely passed, my own endeavor will be to promote some arrangement to which Germany could be a party, by which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would be pursued against her or her allies, by France, Russia, and ourselves, jointly or separately. I have desired this and worked for it, as far as I could, through the last Balkan Crisis, and Germany having a corresponding object, our relations sensibly improved. The idea has hitherto been too Utopian, Etc." Of the value of such an offer, in International Politics, from the point of view of its being that of a single individual in the insecure tenure of a British State Secretaryship, it is superfluous to speak. Granting the promise binding on the nation, on the three nations, it would remain sufficiently peculiar. In the first place it admits— Shall we say frankly admits? Helplessly and in spite of itself admits were nearer the mark — that the attitude of the three so promising nations had been and was of a nature to somewhat strongly call for assurance from them that their intents were not hostile or aggressive; and may surely at once pass muster as so far veridical. Whether the German would find it an item of much weight in assuring him of the fact so acknowledged? Hardly, I should think. Alight better find it a sealing proof of the quality of our magnanimity and charitable purpose. But the message did not intend to convey recriminations on the past, nor shed light on it; it was for security in the future. Dear friend, not foe I hope this instant, submit to-day, at our ardent intercession let Austria go to pot, and I for reward, will promise to do my private utmost in the to-morrow to obtain for you an Agreement whereby each of these three now in threatened league against you shall enter into bond that they will never more, either singly or collectively pursue a policy aggressive or hostile to you. Such fact, to drunk sense too Utopian, was all you ever sought, bond for it you never asked. But never again! never again! I swear it on my knees beseeching grace: this shall be a lesson to me all my days remaining. If we can read it quite so without stretch, some breath of personal sympathy for Grey may well be in us. Sir Edward! this turn dropped from my pen as I wrote, without premeditation, and has banished all harsh feeling toward you. For I can believe it may have been thus with you. Yet the leopard does not change his spots. And as for any species of security to Germany in the future having been hereby offered, there is not the shadow of such a thing. Did the remorseful one, really or hypothetically remorseful, himself even contemplate a removal of the fences, not a strengthening of them, if given further time to do it in? Checkmate to be abandoned? Perhaps I should not have gone so far in these ambiguous realms. Perpetual check, check, without a mate, — or for your mate's sake — and your own — is also a known thing; if often pleasing to the checker somewhat liable to grow irritating to the checkee. Then stalemate is surely the fairest draw of all, long reckoned even, and leaving honor to the staled. Chalk line itself can be charitably circumscribed, the confined one grow fat enough; all circumscribers consent they'll not disturb the circle, and the Goose clearly a party to the compact. Happy stay within instead of discontented, and our Policy triumph at last. See! child, we will teach you to build your own ring wall, at least you shall have a hand in building it, then shall you sit blessed in freedom from check, whilst we sweep wide o'er the earth in unburdened cheer. — The offer was peculiar; if you can read a gleam of private grace in it, 'tis happy so far; but to speak of it as magnanimous, to refer to it in any way as of the smallest weight in the issues, betokens strange latitudes.

These things are a little pregnant, reader! Choice of sequence not unadvised would you grapple with the Whole. Turn back, then, to what is called The Infamous German Bid for British Neutrality.

I will say foremost that this British description of Germany's conduct is "amazing," even to me. I have nowhere met the like of it; in sheer sodden mendacity of soul, it surpasses everything of its kind I have heard of, and deserves to be held in permanent record as a non plus ultra in that line. Here is no knave's shuffle, no hypocrite's deliberate suppression of the truth, but an open publicly declared and printed statement of the facts as they were; and then an interpretation instantly concluded of them, for campaign of unctuous eloquence and self-righteous indignation, excuse and cover of most fateful deed, utterly and glaringly in total incompatibility with those facts, for which those facts offered no momentary possibility of a conceivable color to any honest-minded mortal. Such emphatic stricture may not apply to many members of the general public who only heard of the facts through the interpretation, or along with it; but I could not reduce a syllable of this stricture for the men who gave out the interpretation at the same time that they made the facts known. Germany, looking into now almost certain war with Russia and knowing, as you and all the world did, that France would not remain neutral but side with Russia, aware also of certain vain pretensions tenanted in British lodgings too sadly furnished with them, had the candor and forebearance, suppressing all comment on those pretensions, to say thus, through her Chancellor:

"That it was clear, so far as he was able to judge the main principle which governed British policy, that Great Britain would never stand by and allow France to be crushed in any conflict there might be.1 That, however, was not the object at which Germany aimed. Provided that neutrality of Great Britain were certain, every assurance would be given to the British Government that the Imperial Government aimed at no territorial acquisition at the expense of France should they prove victorious in any war that might ensue.

"I (Sir E. Goschen) questioned his Excellency about the French Colonies, and he (the German Chancellor) said that he was unable to give a similar undertaking in that respect. As regards Holland, however, his Excellency said that, so long as Germany's adversaries respected the integrity and neutrality of the Netherlands, Germany was ready to give His Majesty's Government an assurance that she would do likewise. It depended on the action of France what operations Germany might be forced to enter upon in Belgium, but when the war was over, Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided against Germany." (Despatch number eighty-five.)

What is there either of "bid" or "infamy" in this? What did you expect of Germany? That when engaged in war eastward, she should just shoulder arms along her western border; stand patiently waiting there till the French were ready to attack her; and then, in height of fantastic heroism merely defend the border, resolutely brush back, if she could, (you will allow her that right I suppose?) any French attempt to cross. Yet never under any provocation herself set foot beyond; and, when the war was over, retire with sage bow and lifted hat, remarking Our deepest thanks to you, Messieurs, for this spiritual exercise, and all good hopes the amusement has proved beneficial to you? It verily seems that little short of this would have contented you. And I know that your rage arose through finding your baseless prescriptions not obeyed and diplomacy turned to water. What shadow of a title had Britain to settle the terms on which Germany should fight France, that Britain which had never done aught to keep France from seizing opportunity to satisfy grudge? Is Britain the God of this lower world? and what just God would lend cover to one side against another, then forbid that other to exact the least penalty if victorious? You call it an infamous bid by Germany, and the fact was an infamous dictation of terms by Britain. Infamous dictation wisely recognized extant, and dealt with in an admirable restraint.

The German, wisely perceiving the existence of certain pretensions in some heads, where, however baseless in fact, their existence can in verity become momentous enough, saw that it could profit nothing to give the least expression to his thought of those pretensions, though we need not doubt he had his thoughts, but in a manful prudence mildly enquired How far do these Olympian ideas extend? Beyond this? And Britain in immovable majesty, disdaining affront, replied from aloft: Of course, far beyond. Not outgone in forbearance at the first blush, merely with the eye suggested Darest propose a limit to our sovereign jurisdiction? Who could treat with you. Gentlemen? Germany may defend her countries, quite large enough for her in our supreme decision, our Almightiness graciously concedes so much; but, by our omnipotence, and world-shaking nod, let her expend what blood and treasure she may, she shall go home again with nothing save her labor for her trouble; no hair of France's head shall be harmed, and she, meanwhile, under our sheltering wing, have free allowance if victorious to keep whate'er she can wrench. O soul of Equity! must not the whole just of the earth rise in sternest wrath to crush the thievish miscreant would not before entering conflict take oath on demand at once and humbly to observe these righteous terms? Truly, I have never met their match, and grow in respect for the German could still restrain and try yet further: Will you, if we promise not to infringe Belgian neutrality — and even, it would seem by speech in Parliament, though it is not in White Paper, forego our right to attack the northern coasts of France — Shall you even on these extreme compliances with your Lordship's arbitrium — and, bravely, without a hint they were compliances and the arbitrium most exsufflicate, — refuse to promise neutrality? Imperious Yes, we will and do refuse. We may perhaps, on those conditions, permit you to enter the war without us for terrible opposite, but will give you no manner of assurance that, once in, we will not fall upon you in time and circumstance convenient for us. 'Tis easy now to see that the second offer was useless; for he who named the first a "bid" and "infamous" could only be confirmed in exalted spurn by an amendment conceding more to folly's vain impious challengings. O British Jove offended! ominously grasping the lightening, I can tell you one way in which Germany's "bid," if then ever made, might have been infamous. The way of own course honorable, when the bare suggestion of your dreaming to lay down a rule whereby she should fight, might well have shocked you with its atrocity.

Along with this claim to dictate the conditions of Germany's combat with France, simultaneous throughout runs the figment of British Free Hand, no binding obligation to bestir on France's behalf but liberty to take any side according to judgment of merits of each particular case that might arise. You pledge yourself to maintain Belgian neutrality (whereon a word further shortly), you stand resolved that you will permit to Germany no territorial acquisitions at the expense of France or her Colonies, in other words, that, if she have war with France, she shall on its conclusion go home again with nothing but her labor for her trouble; what more one knows not; but finally and above all you undertake to protect the northern coasts of France and prevent by force any attack upon them by Germany: And then you say you were not under treaty obligations to fight on France's behalf! Never was more hideous mockery of faith; vilest conspiracy plotting for attack and partition were clean in comparison. Those despatches of Sir Edward Grey's wherein he expounded to France and Russia the delicate and fine distinctions which left Britain no treaty ally but a member of Entente with hand free, were not purposely cunning at all yet did simply point the way. The Russ was thick of comprehension at first but the nimble Celt perceived in a twinkling, and with eyes privately twinkling, though listening to Sir Edwards dissection with all sobriety of countenance. Just so, your Excellency. The British lion owns no harness and the Island Ape which rides him cannot intervene except under certain contingencies. Adieu; till tomorrow; we will not importune you till wanted, and when wanted you have told us. We proceed then alone yet secure of your aid the moment we act thus and thus. Incredible as it may seem to a German, only credible as it is to Man when sadly conversant with the phosphorescences which once noble moralities gone putrid sometimes exhibit, Sir E. Grey did not mean. Act you in such and such a fashion in order that our hands may appear clean to the world; he wrote in sincerity, what is called sincerity, yet no whit the less simply pointed the way.

Instead of open declaration of common cause with France, conclusion of definite alliance offensive and defensive, you gave France secretly the utmost cover it was in your power to give short of such definite bond, and properly it was not for France's sake but for your own. And then, if the German would have conformed to the outrageous conditions imposed on him by that cover, you might perhaps have been content to stand neutral. Great was your magnanimity! noble your rage that the Teuton rejected your conditions. The Prime Minister made a great point in his speech, and inflamed the country with "infamous" German, by exclaiming: Were we to stand by with folded arms and see the northern coast of France bombarded! that coast left undefended through our agreements with France! Most true, by your agreements! How came those coasts to be defenceless? Why was the French fleet concentrated in the Mediterranean? You secretly made compact to defend those coasts so that the French fleet could leave them; and then exclaim as if their defenceless state were one of helpless innocence, calling to humanity for protection, came by no subtilty of yours; and say you had free hand to decide every case on its merits! It is the fearfullest exhibition of shameless sodden mendacity I have come across; no "perfidy" could be worse if this be not perfidious. You wished peace, you say? And, to preserve it, privately made arrangement with one neighbor which gave him the fullest cover you could contrive; for the other had thereby laid down conditions of combat utterly outrageous, devoid of any sort of basis outside your own convenience: Then proclaim yourself Champion of Right unwillingly forced into war by considerations of highest duty because the one made that use of the cover afforded him he was sure to make and the other refused your delirious prescriptions of conduct for him!

On the question of Belgian Neutrality it is not necessary to say more than a word further. One could have well wished it respected by all, but knows not how it could have been so by Germany. One thing is quite certain, it was not Britain that should have been foremost in demanding it, but Belgium herself, in direct friendly interchange with Germany, not through appeal to Britain in preconclusion of hostility and palpable leaning to one side; or, next, by France, equally in the way of direct mutual agreement with Germany; and Britain only if at all, as honestly impartial third. But it is folly to speak of the probities which might have been. Alas! no, which never had a chance of being. For Britain to demand as she did, especially in conjunction with other items in the same despatch, was at once a threat of Beware! or I come in unless you conform to my rules as self-constituted Marshal of these Lists. And thus, to the German, the thing was from the first suspicious and to be rejected as obviously not demanded for equity but in the interests of his adversaries. For Germany to grant it, too, was a much heavier demand than for France. The German said that he had unimpeachable evidence that France meant to attack him in that quarter; and personally, I have little doubt the French assurance was given in the certainty it would never be required of them to fulfil it; that the swifter moving German would be the first to cross the border, and so they could throw the opprobrium upon him without risk to themselves. For the Belgians, it is sure that, however they may have desired to escape damage, they were not neutral of spirit but exceedingly adverse to Germany. It has been said since the war began that, if France had violated Belgian Neutrality, Britain would equally have gone to war: It is sufficiently probable she would — on just the same side she now has. Britain would not have sided with Germany against France for Belgium's sake: All men know that completely, and the saying she would is a deliberate Lie, straightforward enough for once. A thing just safely said after, known without any foundation. A most godless farce is all this pretence of British championship of Belgium. On every ground, care of Belgium's welfare would have counselled: Yield. On that compulsion, yield; grant the Germans the free passage they demand. This alone had been the magnanimous course, and most earnest persuasion of any champion for Belgium. I am not quite saying you were called to do this; but you are emphatically called to admit that, in urging Belgium to resist to the utmost on promises of help you knew could never reach her in time, you were deliberately throwing her under the harrow of war, with possible loss of national independence, for no other object than to gain time for yourselves. Had Belgium then been Ally the urgement to resist had been fair; to a neutral, it had nothing in it "magnanimous," can only pass as natural to self-seekers diligent to use all means within reach to gain their own ends. Neither is there any manner of doubt that Britain solely ever undertook to support Belgian Neutrality by force for her own interests in fear of Germany's power.

In summary of these Ostensible Causes: Except, it is a big exception, Britain's possession by dread of German Aggression, involuntarily made all too apparent, no Real Cause comes to light. And, when you speak of Real Causes, you have to ask, even of that Dread, whence came it? What ground, if any, had it to stand on? Hence no answer whatever is given here to the question — Why are we at war? but only is how we have come to be at war a little told. And the true value of these White Paper Despatches is as documents testifying of the integrity of the several writers, as representing their nations, or at least Governments. In this view, the Servian is cunning, shifty, and wittingly never shows true face. The Austrian and Russian keep their motives hidden, reveal to impertinent curiosity no more than their proud heights to deem suitable. The French are clear, incisive, declare a singleness of purpose, whatever wiliness of method; namely to make the most of the opportunity if it came now, with readiness to wait for a better if need be. In the German a grand resolvedness, weight of meaning, sagacious instead of alert; very determined indeed, yet restrained, forbearant, rising to fateful enterprise unescapable in meditations cloudy profound: their words have everywhere a right sterling ring. In the British, an utter hollowness, most zealous pleading far removed from all contact with the facts. No secrecy of the conscious hypocrite, but that bottomless mendacity which, self-contemplating its own false face truly rendered back in the mirror, cries on the world to witness Saw ye ever a fairer or more blameless!

_______________

Notes:

1 That same Britain that a little before had called it unwarranted for Germany to refuse to stand by and see Austria crushed.

[admin]

Part 4 of 5

HYPHENATION JUSTIFIED.
BY THE EDITOR.

''THERE is much talk to-day about "hyphenated Americans" and the objection to hyphenation is common if not almost universal. The objection is justified, but is there not a side to the question in which hyphenation is quite legitimate?

We all agree that our nation should be one in love of country and unanimous in its ideal of building up a new nation on the western continent, cherishing the ideals of humanity in independence and with strength; but we do not, nor can we, deny that the new nation is the result of many factors and a coalescence of all the nations of the world. The union of all becomes possible only through the faithfulness of all to the common ideal, but the elements of which the whole is wrought hail from different countries of Europe. First there are the Yankees, the Puritans, who came here from England for conscience's sake because they sought liberty for the free exercise of their religion which they could not find in the old country. A different type are the Virginians and further still the Marylanders under Lord Baltimore, many of whom were adherents of the Roman Catholic faith. Quite different again were the Friends, called Quakers, who acquired Pennsylvania, and it was in their territory that the first Germans settled, coming from the Palatinate on the Rhine.

On the basis of these first colonizations the development of the country began, and after a successful war with England the colonies changed into a federation of states inviting immigrants from all quarters of the world. A period of immigration set in and the thirteen states became the refuge of innumerable men and families who for some reason or other sought a new home in the great land of the west because they were dissatisfied with the conditions of their former homes, or because they strongly sympathized with the ideals of liberty and hoped to help in building up a nation of the future where mankind would find happier and nobler and better prospects than in the past.

It is not expected, and has never been deemed necessary, that these immigrants should blot out their past, that they should forget their old homes or acquire a contempt for their forefathers or become hostile to their brothers whom they left behind in Europe. On the contrary, they were welcome here on account of their intellectual inheritance. They were invited to bring along all the treasures of their civilization so as to enrich their new home with the best they had to offer. Only one thing was expected of them, to cut off and forswear all former political allegiance to their princes or governments, for that is indispensable if they would be free citizens of this country and serve its interests faithfully.

It is in this sense that the objection to hyphenated Americans is justified. All those who settle in this country and become naturalized do so by their own free will in becoming Americans. The United States of America owns their allegiance fully and wholly. The governments of their original homes lose every claim, for these new citizens promise solemnly no longer to recognize any other obligations than toward the country of their adoption.

In this sense the objection to the use of hyphenated designations is rigidly justified and there is no question about it. But there is another sense in which the use of a hyphen is perfectly legitimate, and it is entirely suitable to speak of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, French-Americans, Anglo-Americans, Afro-Americans, Greco-Americans, Italo-Americans, Polish-Americans, and of the very small contingent of Indians as the original true Americans. We are different in blood and in tradition. Our mental constitution is not the same although we are all Americans, and I know more about a man if I hear him spoken of as an Afro-American or an Anglo-American or a German-American. In this latter sense the hyphenated designation is perfectly justified and it would be positively foolish to forbid distinctions of this kind.

In the narrow sense of the word there are very few Anglo-Americans in this country. Englishmen who settle in this country as a rule remain British. They would consider that they were surrendering a privilege if they were to give up their connection with Great Britain. The first Englishman I met in this country, when asked whether he was an American, answered with indignation, "I never foreswore my allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen!" And the same spirit of allegiance to their old country is noticeable in most Englishmen living in this country. The patriotism of the English is a commendable trait, but at the same time I must confess that it prevents the subjects of the British empire from making desirable citizens for the United States.

The old Anglo-Americans were very different; they possessed, and many of their descendents still possess, a spirit of independence. They are also broad enough to recognize the good in other nations. They are proud of being able to trace their ancestry back to colonial days and few of them have forgotten that we owe our liberty to a struggle with Old England. They are friendly to England but not submissive. They know very well that the English people look down upon the Americans at best as third-class English. The colonials, the British subjects in the colonies, are second-class English, and when a native Englishman is kindly disposed he ranges Americans directly after these second-class English subjects, as third-class Englishmen.

There is another kind of Anglo-Americans who object to being third-class Englishmen. They are Anglomaniacs. Convinced of many shortcomings — especially in manners — traceable in their countrymen, they become what Professor Patten calls Britonets.1 They ape the English and succumb to a typical disease, Anglo-mania. These people are a dangerous element in this country because they exhibit an ill-concealed tendency of submission to Great Britain and are somewhat ashamed that the thirteen colonies ever broke away from England and asserted their independence again and again. They would not have joined Washington's army and regret that there should have been the war of 1812.

I do not hesitate to regard the German-Americans, by the side of the old Americans of colonial descent and with revolutionary traditions, as the most valuable portion of American citizenship. Their merits in building up the United States have been fully recognized by historians and if they now show a discontent with our administration on account of its Britonet tendencies, exhibiting an unworthy submissiveness to the dictates of Great Britain and a positively unfair treatment of Germany, we are inclined to say that their complaints ought to be heeded. From the start the Germans have made the best and most faithful and enthusiastic citizens, but we cannot expect that they have become Americans for the purpose of assisting the American nation to serve as a catspaw for England. They came here to become citizens of an independent nation and wanted to help in building up the great humanitarian republic of untold future possibilities, but decidedly they did not mean to become either third-class English or Britonets.

We Americans are at present subject to the latter danger and are likely to lose our chances of becoming the great republic of the future, in which the ideals of mankind shall be actualized in a higher degree than ever before.

With very rare exceptions German-Americans are good Americans, inspired by the proper spirit of American ideals, but considering their intellectual inheritance of high-minded ideals, their love of solid education, their respect for law, their insistence on liberty and regard for the rights of others, we deem it wrong to do away with the proper designation of their origin.

The objection to the hyphenated expression is justified only when the double name does not so much refer to the descent of American citizens as to a state of mind in which a man is supposed to serve two masters. Since this is the case only in the rarest possible exceptions, we see in the opposition to hyphenation a sly attempt to weaken the just criticism that at present comes from our German-American fellow citizens.

The German-Americans are right when they denounce the "neutrality" of the United States in furnishing ammunition to the Allies so as to help them kill the German soldiers in their defense of the fatherland. We have no business to support either British supremacy on the seas or the plans of the Czar in extending the muscovite dominion over Europe.

There is no need of leveling all Americans, those of colonial descent, the German-Americans, the Irish-Americans, the Latin-Americans, the Slav-Americans, and the Afro-Americans, to the indiscriminate mass of "Americans," and the suggestion to do so indicates a bad conscience. It is mainly directed against the German-Americans because they have a complaint against our administration which is Britonet (as Professor Patten would say). But the Britonets do not dare to discuss the situation openly with proper arguments, and so, with a sly trick worthy of a British diplomat like Sir Edward Grey, they transfer the issue to a field where they claim the right to silence the warning which comes from German-American quarters. They would mark it as treason if the German-American did not approve of this country's policy of helping the English in reducing Germany to defeat for a proper remuneration in dollars and cents.

Therefore we feel it advisable to declare in all honesty that we are all hyphenated Americans and shall remain so, and we hope that in later centuries America will be proud of being the product of several different elements of European blood mixture. We do not mean to become Anglomaniacs but will build up a new nation in which, though the foundations have been laid by the Anglo-Americans, the German-American element has given to this nation the most important and most valuable addition.

The Germans of the old world have proved to mankind in the present world war that in spite of being more than six times outnumbered by their enemies they hold their own, and there is no chance that they will be crushed or defeated by the allied powers. Their admirable efficiency in their peaceful pursuits is fully equalled by an efficiency in battle, and the time will come when we Americans will deem it advisable, yea indispensable, to imitate their institutions, their methods of civil service, their methods of education, their inventions in industrial spheres, their progress in science, in music and other arts. The proof of German efficiency, of their superiority in almost every respect, is manifest and our fellow citizens of German descent will take pride in calling themselves German-Americans.

In concluding these comments, I will sum up the result of my consideration thus: The existence of hyphenated Americans is an undeniable fact, and the condemnation of the use of hyphenated names takes its origin from a desire to make an important part of our population connive in violating our duties, in submitting to the policy of our country in shirking the duties of neutrality, in legalizing the enslavement of the United States under British rule and in serving British interests — in a word, in changing our republic into a British dependency.

_______________

Notes:

1 See "Becoming American" by S. N. Patten in The Open Court of  July, 1915.

***************

A CHRONICLE OF UNPARALLELED INFAMIES.

AN OPEN LETTER TO DR. PAUL CARUS.

Sir, — Various articles from your pen have appeared in The Open Court defending the action of Germany and the German armies in regard to the inception and conduct of the present war. You have alleged that this terrible conflict was brought about by Great Britain, upon whom lies the guilt; and that the excesses imputed to German troops either were not committed by them, or were grossly exaggerated, or were only such as usually accompany the armed struggles of nations. You have asserted that it was the Belgians who first committed atrocities upon the Germans, and that the severities exercised by the latter were justifiable retaliations for wanton outrages against the gentle and humane invaders of a little country whose integrity they were pledged to maintain.

You have, I presume, by this time received and read the Report of the commission formed by the British Government, and presided over by Lord Bryce, for the purpose of investigating the excesses alleged to have been committed by the troops of your Fatherland. I would particularly call your attention to the Appendix to this Report, in which the carefully sifted evidence of over five hundred witnesses appears in detail.

It is almost inconceivable that any one after reading this Report should continue to believe that on the outbreak of the war an orgy of purposeless crime was begun by the Belgian people. Consider the improbability of such a thing. Before the entry of the Germans into Belgium orders had been given in every town, village and district of that country that all arms were to be delivered up to the authorities. The evidence shows that these orders were faithfully complied with. Even had the civilian population been armed, what could they have done to stem the advance of the great and highly disciplined German forces? Do you suppose the Belgian civilians were not aware of their helplessness, and of the folly of committing outrages which were certain to be promptly avenged? Or do you believe that in the frenzy of despair they actually did commit shocking cruelties? Had they done so, a generous foe would have dealt leniently with them; certainly he would not have avenged himself upon innocent children. In any case the fact of the official order to deliver up arms and the compliance therewith show that no forcible resistance by non-combatants was sanctioned or contemplated. The evidence proves that none took place.

The Report contains many statements that the reckless — or, shall we say, accidental? — firing of shots by drunken German soldiers was sometimes believed to mean that they were being attacked. Had this been the case, the attacks must have been made by Belgian troops, not by civilians, whose assertions that they were unarmed bear every mark of veracity. You consider that these civilian attacks — which do not appear to have taken place — justify the ferocious cruelties committed by the German soldiery upon the non-combatant population. I do not think any one who can weigh evidence will agree with you.

More than this: it is stated in several of the depositions that German soldiers themselves on some occasions fired shots with the obvious and deliberate intention of having an excuse for the massacre of civilians. They are alleged to have gone into empty houses, fired shots, and raised the cry that non-combatants had begun an attack. The accusation of shooting became a stock phrase, repeated on numberless occasions, without a moment's inquiry into its truth, and resulting in the violent death of many persons who were absolutely innocent of the charge.

German soldiers were very frequently seen to throw small discs or other substances into houses which at once burst into flames. Into these burning houses soldiers and civilians, some dead, some still living, were cast; in one instance a man was held in the flames till his head and arms were roasted. I beg you to notice that, as these acts were committed during the first few weeks of the war, such inflammable materials must have been prepared beforehand. The German troops left their own country provided with the means for the deliberate commission of cruel outrages.

Have you formed an opinion of the incident of the child of two years who, while standing in the street at Malines, was transfixed by a brave German soldier with his bayonet and carried off on the weapon, a song on the lips of its murderer? What can you say of the public violation of fifteen women in the square of Liege in the presence of and begun by officers? You will, I trust, disapprove of the appalling savagery deposed to by witnesses a33, d118, d133, and, above all, d86. These incidents are so horrible that it must have needed some resolution to print the accounts; but there are hundreds of others nearly as bad.

As your culture is not exclusively German, you may find it difficult to believe that these horrors actually took place. The evidence goes to show that they give but a faint and blurred impression of the reality.

You will, perhaps, agree with me that cruelty — deliberate, cold-blooded cruelty, unprovoked by the individuals against whom it is manifested — is one of the foulest of all human vices. The alleged cruelty of the Belgians revolts you. Does not the infinitely greater cruelty of your countrymen revolt you? Are you not ashamed of the base and cowardly lies by which they have sought to excuse it? You cannot, I think, approve the implication that massacre by Germans is quite legitimate, but that every retaliation is a monstrous outrage upon them. Throughout the war it has been evident that Germany wants to have things entirely her own way. According to the investigations which have been made the charges brought against the Belgians are false, the charges against the Germans are true. Although a German you will probably be able to appreciate the distinction. You cannot be so little-minded as to think that crimes committed by your friends are for that reason less reprehensible than crimes committed against them.

Apart from the ethical standpoint from which I have tried to consider these outrages, one is deeply impressed by their astounding folly. For the moment they, no doubt, succeeded in terrorizing the civil population of Belgium — that is, they broke the spirit of helpless people who never even tried to resist — but they inspired the Belgian army to fight on with the courage of despair. That army has lost everything but honor. Germany has not lost her honor, because it is doubtful whether she ever had any honor to lose.

The German atrocities have produced the same stiffening effect on France, Great Britain, and the other nations which are painfully rolling back the tide of barbarism. They feel that, if civilization is to go on, this arrogant, bloodthirsty race — a race essentially savage, though with a thick smear of mechanical culture — must be effectually subdued. Should the Germans be victorious, they will have earned the undying scorn of the civilized world. In the event of their being defeated, they will have reason to regret the outrages in which they have so fatuously indulged. They will have rendered themselves liable to the most terrible punishment, the most ghastly reprisals. Their foes may be little inclined to be merciful, and it will be simply a question for the Allies to say how far their magnanimity shall extend.

The German army is a very brave army — when it knows that it is the stronger. Allow me to recall to you one or two instances of German heroism. One section of the Appendix to the Bryce Report is devoted to evidence which proves that the Germans made a practice of using civilians, frequently women and children, as screens to intercept or avert the fire of the enemy. Thirty-six eyewitnesses, nearly half of them British, testify to the facts, and in several cases it is stated that the British or Belgian force retreated for fear of killing the unhappy civilians, thus leaving the Germans with a military advantage which was probably not unnoticed in their official reports. On one occasion the British rapidly swung their guns round and attacked the German flank. "The Germans then bolted, leaving the civilians behind." If you consider that your compatriots have kept within the usages of war, you will, no doubt, be able to produce some authority in military law or practice in justification of this characteristic maneuver: as a former German officer, you must be in a position to appreciate its prudence and ingenuity.

The Appendix contains a score of testimonies (fifteen of them British) to the abuse by German troops of the white flag. This abuse usually took the form of a pretended surrender, followed by a murderous fire, in which many British and Belgians were slain. So frequently was the trick repeated that the touching faith of the British in German "honor" impresses me rather as culpable credulity. That faith has doubtless become weaker by this time. But I would again call your attention to the unmanly cowardice and the unaccountable stupidity of the German proceeding. Having been a Saxon officer yourself (and we deem the Saxons to be honorable foes), you will admit that nothing revolts a soldier more than base and contemptible trickery, nor is anything more calculated to arouse an unholy thirst for vengeance.

I trust you will carefully read the sections of the Appendix relating to massacres by the Germans of wounded enemies, firing on hospitals and stretcher-bearers, and abuses of the Red Cross. Of these eighty-five examples are given, and after reading them it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the charges are fairly proved. That conclusion is greatly strengthened by the evidence of the Germans themselves. Copies or extracts of half-a-dozen military proclamations, and extracts from thirty-five diaries found on dead or captured German soldiers, show clearly that the treatment of the Belgians by the invaders was excessively and unreasonably severe. In this connection I may add, on the authority of an article by Professor J. H. Morgan in the Nineteenth Century for June, that in the diary of a German non-commissioned officer the writer states his belief that the German officers invented the stories of Belgian and French atrocities in order to prevent their men from surrendering.

You will now, I venture to hope, follow the example of Dr. F. C. Conybeare, on whose mistaken admissions you have relied. For your own sake you should publicly withdraw your charges against the innocent, and transfer them to the guilty. You owe an apology to the Belgian people whom you have slandered. You did not originate the slanders; you have merely shown a strange gullibility in giving them currency. Examine the evidence with care; do not ferret out minor defects in the testimony and ignore its real weight; be man enough to rise above national bias and petty evasions; speak the truth without fear or favor. Yet a sentence in your magazine for May last is not calculated to make one hopeful. One despairs of the mentality of a man who can write so choice an absurdity as this: "God is neutral; but I am convinced that, being impartial, he will stand by Germany in spite of the odds that count against her." Charles T. Gorham.

IN REPLY TO MR. CHARLES T. GORHAM.

The present war, so terrible, so sanguinary, so useless and unnecessary, has caused much discussion and disrupted many international friendships. I fully appreciate, therefore, the regret which you express at the difference in our opinions, and I wish sincerely that we might come to an agreement on the war, its causes and the facts of its history. I have honestly and impartially tried to understand its origin and to obtain the most reliable information, and although I have my doubts in many important details, I have arrived at definite convictions in all main points; and considering the tremendous importance of the issues I have deemed it my duty to express my views openly and submit them to public criticism, irrespective of approval or condemnation. And I promise to retract publicly any statement of mine the erroneousness of which can now or in the future be proved.

You are so firmly convinced of the truth of your position regarding the war that you do not understand how I can support such a "chronicle of unparalleled infamies"; but I assure you it is after a careful investigation made in an impartial spirit that I say that this terrible conflict was brought about by Great Britain.

Germany in the past has repeatedly kept peace when bitterly provoked, and once again did she endeavor to do so. She could have no motive for going to war with the formidable combination that is ranged against her. The German government and also the German Emperor personally did their utmost to avoid the war, both with Russia and with England; and it was above all England that cut off every chance of peace and forced Germany to break Belgian neutrality.

You must be very unfair not to concede that the mere possibility of a hostile invasion through Belgium imposed upon Germany the imperative duty of anticipating the attack. The equivocal attitude of Sir Edward Grey would have made the preservation of Belgian neutrality a criminal neglect of self-defense at the most dangerous point and in a most dangerous moment. Germany knew that Belgium was prepared as an ally of France and England, not otherwise; and later events have proved that Germany's suspicion was but too well justified.

Further, I still assert that "the Belgians first committed atrocities upon the Germans and that the severities exercised by the latter were justifiable measures against wanton outrages."

I never spoke of the invaders as "gentle" or "humane"; war is always terrible, and I feel sorry for the people in whose country it has to be waged. War always brings suffering and sorrow in its train. That is the reason why Germany tried to avert a conflict. But once war was inevitable I do not blame the German government for having endeavored to keep invaders out of Germany and not waiting patiently until an Anglo-French army broke into the Rhenish provinces in the rear of the German troops as the latter marched into France through Lorraine.

I felt very sorry for the Belgians, but I cannot help thinking that they had only themselves to blame, provoking, as they did, a German attack. Their government had adopted a mistaken policy, and they reaped what they sowed. If there is any other nation they can reasonably blame, it is Great Britain alone. Sir Edward Grey could have saved Belgium from the fate she met if he had honestly tried to keep peace with Germany. But he did not mean to. All his acts are inexplicable and stupid except on the principle, which seems to be his one actuating motive, Germania est delenda.

I have read the report of the commission formed by the British government for the purpose of investigating the excesses alleged to have been committed by the Germans, but I deem it a partisan statement cleverly composed to give the impression that the Germans are barbarians who delight in the most atrocious cruelties. The evidence of the witnesses in Lord Bryce's report does not seem to me to have been carefully sifted, and if the alleged atrocities are true how is it possible that a group of American reporters traveled all across Belgium in vain in search of witnesses and failed to discover one iota of proof? — Nothing but the just punishment meted out, after due trial by court martial, for criminal acts committed by the populace! No, I cannot discover a trace of these unparalleled infamies in spite of Lord Bryce's and other reports.

I am impressed with the fact that you rely on fictitious statements. You do not seem to know that, for instance, in Louvaine the armed resistance of the populace had been carefully prepared and instigated, of which fact the German authorities are in possession of unequivocal proof in the form of written orders as to the distribution of arms, and lists of names. The story that the struggle in the streets began through "reckless or accidental firing of shots by drunken German soldiers" is a fairy tale which flatly contradicts even the Belgian descriptions of the fight and has been invented for the benefit of those friends of the Allies in France and England who have no clear conception of the situation, for the purpose of prejudicing them against Germany. Anyone who can weigh evidence will not agree with you.

I hope you will excuse me for not having "formed an opinion on the incident of the child of two years who, while standing in the street at Malines, was transfixed by a brave German soldier with his bayonet and carried off on the weapon, a song on the lips of its murderer." I have formed no opinion on the story except that I regard it as fiction.

Your logic is simple. You come to the conclusion that "the charges brought against the Belgians are false, the charges against the Germans are true." But what do you say of the murder and persecution of Germans in the streets of Paris, Antwerp, Milan, also in London and other British cities, and in Canada? What do you say about the price set upon the heads of Germans in South Africa, to be paid to natives? What do you say about the atrocities of English soldiers? There is a rough element everywhere, but I know that the German army is made up of more humane elements than any other body of soldiers.

I hope that Great Britain will adopt the German military system, for I would expect from it a great improvement in the British military forces and also the spread of a peaceful spirit in English policy. Germany is the best prepared for war, and at the same time the most peaceful in spirit, for the Germans must fight their wars themselves. Every mother must send her own sons into the field.

I would have done anything in my power to prevent the war, and I read with hearty approval the Kaiser's letters to his cousins on the Russian and English thrones. The Kaiser was especially loath to begin a war with the English people to whom he felt so closely bound not only by ties of friendship but also of blood; and I can understand his feeling in the matter. I love the English language, the English literature, the English people; and I hate the thought that the English people have done a grievous wrong. My only comfort consists in the sad consolation that the English people have been betrayed into this stupid attitude toward Germany by a small clique whose leader is Sir Edward Grey.

My sympathy goes out for the English commoners, for the Saxon element of the people, not for the aristocracy nor the men of Norman blood, for I blame the latter for all the misunderstandings and misrepresentations. In the interest of the latter Great Britain is governed, and the latter continue to contrive falsehoods to perpetuate their power and influence. I have always taken offense at Tennyson's wrongly admired estimate of "Norman blood" in the lines

"Kind hearts are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood."

I am convinced that Saxon blood is better than Norman blood, and that the Saxon element of the English people is their better portion and nobler inheritance. I have an antipathy against the crimes, in English history, of those ruling classes who have always, as a matter of course, followed the policy of keeping the great masses of the people in subjection and poverty while they themselves kept the land and appropriated all the power and the sources of wealth.

I fear this war will have to be fought out to the bitter end, and it becomes more and more evident that the English aristocracy will be the losers in the long run. Germany, in her progress in the arts of peace, became a danger to the English ruling classes, and a war seemed to be the only means of getting rid of the inconvenient rival. But I venture to predict that this war will bring about precisely what the English aristocracy, headed by Sir Edward Grey, expected to prevent.

Sir Edward Grey is smart, very smart, and in this war Great Britain has all the odds in her favor. The Triple Entente was a cunning contrivance, and it furnished her with most powerful allies. Yet I predict a final defeat for the allied arms. For too much smartness defeats itself. The British world power is a colossus on clay feet, and these clay feet will crumble when the testing time comes. But out of the misfortunes and chaos of war I look for a regeneration of England, through the noble old Saxondom of her people, the commoners, the true Englishmen. The time will come when this truth will be understood, but at present the outlook is gloomy. Sir Edward Grey has led the people in a course of action which will prove their undoing.

There are a few men in England who take the same view as I, but they are few, very few, and they have no opportunity to make themselves heard. To force them into submission or compel them to retract their statements may prevent reform under present circumstances, but the truth will finally prevail.

We stand before a great crisis in history. England has forced the issue, for she wants to prevent Germany from sharing in the blessings of world power. England would not give up her monopoly of the seas. She wants to preserve the balance of power on the continent so that she may continue her dominion. That is why she misrepresents Germans and calls them Huns and barbarians. She wants to break Germany's power, but it becomes more and more apparent that not Germany's but England's fate lies in the balance, and indications are many that history is pronouncing on England her mene tekel. You do not believe me, but the future will judge between us; the future will reveal the truth.

I love the Germanic peoples. I admire Germany, England and the United States. My ideal has been and still is the establishment of a friendship between these three great nations, and in their alliance I see the hope of mankind, the realization of universal peace among men. But this hope has been well-nigh shattered because of the machinations of a few English diplomats whose policy it is to perpetuate the aristocratic spirit of the British government to the detriment of both Germany and the United States. We want leadership of the most powerful, but freedom for all, and the sine qua non of freedom for all is the freedom of the seas. Misrepresentation plays a considerable role in diplomacy, and the British diplomats have succeeded in making a powerful use of it, above all in misguiding the English people and leading them into this most disastrous war. But misrepresentations will be cleared away like fog in the morning sun, and in the end truth will prevail.

The time will come when the English people will long for truth; I hope they will have enough moral strength left to search for it with honest endeavor, and that they will find it.

Is William the Second to be the liberator of England from the Norman yoke, the one whose task it is to undo the sorry work of William the Conqueror?

War is terrible, and it is the English diplomats that are responsible for the present one. They felt so certain of the outcome but they have made most careless and inexcusable miscalculations. They thought it would be easy to crush Germany, and they still build great hopes upon their misstatements and misrepresentations.

Misrepresentations, if believed in, are often very efficient and do great harm to the misrepresented party, but only for a time. In the long run they are found out and recoil on their inventors. The English people are patient and long-suffering and believe misstatements easily, but they will at last discover that their diplomats have relied on falsehood and have done a grievous wrong in misrepresenting the German cause. The members of the British cabinet, a clique of noblemen, are an incapable and narrow-minded lot, and had not the slightest idea of the terrible task with which they were confronting the English people.

The war is being carried on in a most bungling way by the Allies, especially by the Russians and the English. The best and most worthy among the Allies are, it appears, the French; but even they would be incapable of withstanding the German attack alone.

One thing becomes plainer and plainer: that England will lose her leadership in commerce and world politics, and it is characteristic that in the present war England has once again forced the issue. But it is England herself that is going to be the sufferer; she will lose her place among the nations, and world-leadership will fall to Germany and the United States.

It will take some time before the English people realize this, for they still believe all the reports of German viciousness, of which the alleged atrocities in Belgium are only a minor portion. It will take some time for the English people to wake up, and it seems as if only a serious and terrible defeat in war would open their eyes.

Let us hope that the worst evils carry in them the seeds of some good, of some great good, and that the evils are fraught with blessings beyond what even the most sanguine dreamer expects. The misfortune that brings about the much needed reform and a thorough regeneration of England would be a blessing: it would accomplish more good than evil.

***************

MISCELLANEOUS.  
MISS FARMER AND GREENACRE.

To the Editor of The Open Court:

May I be pardoned if I seek to supplement the article of Mr. Richardson on Bahaism with a few words on Miss Farmer and her life-work, her beloved Greenacre?

No more thrilling chapter in the lives of leaders of thought has ever been written than the facts concerning Miss Farmer and her Greenacre. Her ideal was "a universal platform" upon which with malice toward none, with charity toward all, each might be permitted to voice his own particular creed, to the end that the various religions might learn to compare sympathetically their points of agreement and forget somewhat their points of difference. She believed that if this could be done, religious hatreds and wars would cease.

With a marvelous magnetism, a winning personality and supreme love for all humanity, which drew men and women alike to her side, all eager to assist in the great work for the uplift of the world, Miss Farmer, while health and money lasted, worked with the unfailing ardor of the idealist, giving unstintingly of herself and her means to promote the cause of universality.

Now, her health broken, her little remaining fortune in Maine tied up by distant relatives so that she has to depend absolutely upon the generosity of devoted friends; not daring for fear of personal violence to cross the boundary lines of New Hampshire whose courts having pronounced her sane, she knows that there her last remaining possession, personal liberty, is secure, — she has been compelled to submit to being swept contemptuously aside while her universal platform at Greenacre was seized by a sect known as "Bahaism" and converted into a "Bahai Center."

When the true history of Miss Farmer's work at Greenacre is written, as it must be some day, the history of the untold good to the untold numbers that it has accomplished and still might be accomplishing if that fatal, mentally unbalancing disease, Bahaism, had not crept in, the world will wonder with regret at the magnitude and beauty of that which it permitted to be destroyed.

Yours truly,

A friend of Miss Farmer and Greenacre.

***************

JIKOKUTEN, GUARDIAN OF THE EAST.



The fierce type of features expressing will power which appears in the god Fudo is not limited to this special deity but can be traced in other Japanese gods, especially in the guardians of the four quarters of the world. One of these is illustrated in our frontispiece which is a reproduction of a Japanese painting of Jikokuten, the guardian of the east. The god of the north is called Tamonten, of the south Zochoten and of the west Komokuten.

Some time ago we published the reproduction of a Japanese painting of Fudo (Sanskrit, Achala) which we repeat in this connection. The artist, Seiso Hashimoto, has endowed this deity with all the traditional features of his character. With a sword in one hand, a chain in the other, and his figure enveloped in fiery flames, he is the artistic embodiment of that indomitable will which in spite of all hindrances and obstacles, in the face of danger and death, leads finally to victory.

***************

THE LOTUS GOSPEL.

[In an article bearing the above title in The Open Court of September, 1914, the Editor reviewed at some length a book by Mrs. A. E. Gordon, of Tokyo, entitled World Healers, or The Lotus Gospel and its Bodhisattvas Compared with Early Christianity, and published by Eugene L. Morice of London. We here publish a letter received from Mrs. Gordon in comment on this review. — Ed.]  

May I criticize your review of my World Healers? You don't seem to have got at the kernel of it! In the first place, you will, on reference to the Royal Asiatic Societys' (Seoul Branch) Transactions for 1914, see my lecture on discoveries in Korea which are wonderfully confirmatory of my theories in the book. In the same number of The Open Court there is a most interesting article on a subject new to me, viz., "Martyrs' Milk," and I would ask you to refer to page 68 of my World Healers for a similar instance in the case of the negro monk Kokuhoshi in Korea.

In your review you say: "The gospel it preaches is a kind of combination of Christianity with Buddhism." Now my book does not "preach a gospel." It simply brings into more light what Dr. Timothy Richard already set forth in his translation of Saddharma Pundarika (known in Japan as the Lotus Gospel); and which several scholars have long since concluded may be an apocryphal Christian Gospel, such as the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Gospel of the Hebrews, etc. To my mind, this is far more worthy of God than the selfish orthodox Christian idea that he only illuminated Europe, and later America, with the light of his glorious gospel. You doubtless know Dr. T. Richard's New Testament of Higher Buddhism in which the above translation appears. Dr. Tyan Takakusu, the highest Sanskrit authority out here and a pupil of Max Muller, pronounced that translation "not only to be most accurate literally, but also to give the very essence of the original." Higher praise could hardly be given.

In the third paragraph of your review you very justly criticize my imperfect methods; so please allow me to explain that Prof. A. H. Sayce, when he was in Japan, kindly went through all my manuscripts most carefully, and on my telling him exactly the points you have criticized, he said: "Never mind that, just put down everything you have found up to date, and then let others from that mass of material weed out and arrange all in proper order." You see that being very delicate, and with eyes troubling me, I must do either one thing or the other. If I stop to sift and criticize accurately, I cannot write down the facts that keep crowding in and which, alas! other people out here (now that Dr. A. Lloyd is dead) take no interest in.  

I believe the historical data are as nearly accurate as possible, for, having studied with my dear friend, Max Muller, I am possessed with the idea of historical data being essential, I have been at infinite pains to take out all I have put down. In many cases such contradictory dates are given that it has been an immense labor to verify them. This is an explanation, not an excuse!

As for the Chinese "ship of salvation" I have found far more wonderful frescoes of it in Korea, at Isudoji and on Diamond Mount.

You have omitted the point about Asukahime (p. 553) which is that the dear children recognized their beloved empress and showed it by offering her two chrysanthemums — the imperial crest! This seems to me a peculiarly touching and delicate offering in proof of the recognition after death which so distracts worthy bereaved Christians in the West, and about which so much is written there! "Shall we know one another again?" Yes! these "heathen" Buddhist-Japanese tell us, without a doubt.

Lastly your (p. 556) paragraph on the Nestorian Stone again misses the point.

a. The picture shows the monks pointing out Buddhist terms on the Nestorian Stone and in particular the title used of Kwannon in heaven "The Ship of Great Mercy," Ts'i-hang. May I refer you to Edkins's Chinese Buddhism, pp. 266, 353, as to this? The scene took place at the dedication of the stone on Koya san.

b. What you say in your last paragraph seems to infer that the photograph was taken of the original stone (of which your pamphlet1 speaks) at Sianfu.

That pamphlet describes the copy of the stone which was taken to the United States from Sienfu. The only other replica is the one I had the privilege of erecting on Koyasan which for 1100 years was the great shrine of Kobo Daishi and Shingon— the "True Word" Buddhism.

The stone is erected in the holiest place on Koyasan, the Okunoin, where myriads of Japanese have laid their ashes beside the sleeping Kobo who there awaits the coming of Miroku, the Buddhist Messiah. (See Eitel's Handbook on Maitreya). So there are only three in the whole world of this priceless monument of the similarity between Mahayana Buddhism and early Christianity, viz., that at Sianfu, and these two replicas in the United States and Japan.

As I write, the 1100th anniversary of Kobo Daishi is being celebrated and one half a million of pilgrims are to be at Koya gathered from all parts of Japan this month and in May. Two hundred and fifty thousand Japanese tracts containing pictures of the Nestorian stone and descriptive matter are being distributed among these pilgrims.

_______________

Notes:

1 The Nestorian Monument, an Ancient Record of Christianity in China. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1909.

[admin]

Part 5 of 5

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES.

To-Morrow's Road. A Booklet of Verses by G. M. H. London: Old Bourne Press, 15 Holborn, E. C. Pp. 40.

G. M, Hort, who may be remembered by our readers as the author of a poem which appeared some time ago in The Open Court under the title "The Tenant," has collected some of his poems into this little paper-bound volume. Most of them have appeared in various well-known publications, such as The Academy, The Outlook, The Nation, etc.

As an interesting sample we quote the following lines from "The Song of a Fool":

"I had a comrade in the days of morning,
High through his youth a fatal wisdom shone.
Still to each task he'd turn with easy scorning,
Know all too soon, and weary to be gone!
But I, who dream from truth could scarcely sever,
Slow at a fact and lagged at a rule
Drank new delight from some old book for ever —
Thanks be to God, who made me such a fool!
"And now, while life is on itself returning.
While from each window slowly shifts the light,
Loud from the dais, speak the men of learning
Who know the nature of the coming night.
But I who watch the door where daylight narrows.
And irk to find myself so late in school.
Seek truant Hope among the Churchyard barrows!
Thanks be to God, who never cured the fool!"

On another page of this issue we are printing in article form as prepared by the author for us the opening chapters of a book entitled Carlyle and the War, which we understand is shortly to be published in New York, and all inquiries concerning which should be addressed to Jean Wick, Aeolian Hall, 42d Street, in that city.

This book has been written by an Englishman of Scotch descent, who believes his country to be in the wrong in this war and whose motives for writing as he has done must be sought in the book itself. He has written primarily to and for his own countrymen in strong appeal to them to realize the terrible mistake their and his country has made, but though we hope this book may reach England we believe there is much in it to interest Americans also.

The author has made his appeal largely in the name of Thomas Carlyle whom he regards a a truly inspired writer and whose History of Frederick the Great especially he considers that every Briton and American ought to study in this crisis. He feels that the significance of the title he has given to his work ought to be instantly felt by those more earnest and thoughtful men of his own country whom he eminently wishes to reach. To us Americans it may perhaps not be so immediately apparent, but it should soon become evident to readers of Mr. Kelly who writes in no academic spirit or for the mere scholar, but for the present hour and for all who are awake to the momentous issues of the present crisis.

Our readers will notice that Mr. Kelly's article is imbued with the style of his master, Carlyle, after whom (as he has said of himself) he takes "as a son takes after his father," among other ways in his use of vigorous expressions where vigorous thoughts are to be expressed.

Readers not acquainted with certain idiosyncrasies will probably find some difficulty in interpreting the sense. In accordance with our author's request we have refrained from making alterations and have rigorously followed his manuscript in all details, including capitalization and punctuation.

***************

Germany's Isolation
An Exposition of the Economic Causes of the War
By Paul Rohrbach
Translated by PAUL H. PHILLIPSON, Ph. D.

It is undeniable that so far, Germany, which has been so bitterly blamed for the great war, has not had equal opportunity with her enemies to state her side of the case.

Paul Rohrbach's book here presented, while not written primarily as a plea for, or in justification of, Germany's part in the war, has such a bearing upon the whys and wherefores of the great struggle, that it must be considered one of the most notable books yet issued. With the exception of the last chapter which was penned recently, the book was written before the war began.

With keen, incisive logic the author shows war to be inevitable, a natural development of the conditions that then obtained. With startling earnestness he pictures Germany surrounded by mighty foes, jealous of her swift rise to the ranks of the world powers, humiliated and affronted by these same foes as occasion offered, and deprived of her legitimate opportunities for colonial expansion; that she would have to fight for her very life and freedom on both frontiers was certain.

In his concluding chapter. Dr. Rohrbach gives the attitude of Germany to her foes as follows:

In spite of the hatred toward Germany, a hatred which the French have been nursing for over forty years, there is no need of reducing the rank of France as a world power. Territorially this would mean that her continental boundaries be left undisturbed and the greater part of her North-African possessions untouched. Financially, however, the indemnity imposed upon her can scarcely be too large.

Russia, with her population of one hundred and seventy millions, must at all hazards be reduced, and her ability to attack Central Europe diminished. It will not be difficult to carry out such a plan as large stretches of western and southern Russia are inhabited by non-Russian peoples who would hail their release from the control of the czar with every show of satisfaction.

But the real enemy of Germany, and not only of Germany but of the culture and civilization of all Europe, the enemy who for the sake of his own commercial profits delivered Germany into the hands of the Muscovite and conspired to rob Germany of her rightfully earned place among the nations of the world, that enemy is — England. Peace with England is impossible until her power to do harm has been broken for ever. It would be premature to discuss the ways and means which lead to that end. Let it suffice to say that those ways and means exist, and that Germany is resolved to use them in due time. Then, and then only, Germany's future will be assured. To display leniency toward England is now but to commit an act of treason against the future of the German Empire.

Price $1.00, postage extra
Mailing weight, 11 ounces
The Open Court Publishing Company
122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.

***************

The American Mathematical Monthly
Is the Only Journal of Collegiate Grade in The Mathematical Field in this Country

This means that its mathematical contributions can be read and understood by those who have not specialised in mathematics beyond the Calculus.

The Historical Papers, which are numerous and of high grade, are based upon original research.

The Questions and Discussions, which are timely and interesting, cover a wide variety of topics.

The Book Reviews embrace the entire field of collegiate and secondary mathematics.

The Curriculum Content in the collegiate field is carefully considered. Good papers in this line have appeared and are now in type awaiting their turn.

The Notes and News cover a wide range of interest and information both in this country and in foreign countries.

The Problems and Solutions hold the attention and activity of a large number of persons who are lovers of mathematics for its own sake.

There are other journals suited to the secondary field, and there are still others of technical scientific character in the University field; but the Monthly is the only journal of collegiate grade in America suited to the needs of the non-specialist in mathematics.

Send for circular showing the articles published in the last two volumes.

 Sample copies and all information may be obtained from the MANAGING EDITOR, H. E. SLAUGHT
5548 Kenwood Ave. Chicago, Ill.

***************

New Books on the War from the German Side

WITH THE GERMAN ARMIES IN THE WEST, by Sven Hedin $3.50
BEHIND THE SCENES IN WARRING GERMANY, by Edward Lyell Fox 1.50
THE EUROPEAN WAR OF 1914, by John William Burgess 1.00
THE BRITISH BLACKBOOK .50
A MONTH'S GERMAN NEWSPAPERS, translated by A. L. Gowans 1.00
THE GERMAN ARMY IN WAR, by A. Hilliard Atteridge .50
THE GERMAN FLEET, by Archibald Hurd Paper .25
GERMANY SINCE 1740, by George Madison Priest 1.25
GERMAN CULTURE, PAST AND PRESENT, by E. Belfort Bax 1.25
THE KING, THE KAISER AND IRISH FREEDOM, by James K. McGuire 1.35
A GERMAN-AMERICAN'S CONFESSION OF FAITH, by Kuno Francke .50
THE PEACE AND AMERICA, by Hugo Munsterberg 1.00

Any book '" (he above list sent on receipt of price

The Open Court Publishing Company
122 S. Michigan Avenue , CHICAGO

***************  

JUST PUBLISHED Mithraism, Its Principles and Ritual
By W. J. PHYTHIAN-ADAMS

Cloth, Price 40c

This latest volume of the series Religions Ancient and Modern deals with "that last religion of Paganism locked in the supreme struggle with Christianity which was to decide the spiritual hegemony of the Old Western World."

Open Court Publishing Company
122 S. Michigan Boulevard
CHICAGO

***************

Competitive Library Purchasing

LIBRARIANS not familiar with our prices will find it to their advantage to secure quotations from us before placing their orders elsewhere. We are not only willing but eager to quote our net prices on any proposed purchase.

The Baker & Taylor Co.
Wholesale Dealers in the
Books of all Publishers
New York
354 Fourth Ave., at Twenty-Sixth St.

****************

K'UNG FU TZE
A Dramatic Poem
By PAUL CARUS
Pp. 72
Boards, Price 50c

In this presentation of the life and teachings of Confucius, we see the Chinese religio-ethico world-conception drawn from the ideals and teachings of the man who has molded and still molds the history of China.

The Open Court Publishing Co.
CHICAGO

***************

SOCRATES: THE MAN AND HIS MISSION
by R. NICOL CROSS

This work is an attempt to make Socrates a living figure to modern English readers. It is a biographical and psychological study, in which the intellectual struggles, the prophetic role and the moral and religious grandeur of the man are portrayed against the background of the life and movements of his time.

Price, $1.25 net

THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

***************

Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy
By THE HON. BERTRAND RUSSELL, M.A., F.R.S.
Pages X, 245. Cloth, $2.00 (7s. 6d. net).

This book is a compilation of Mr. Bertrand Russell's "Lowell Lectures" of 1914, in which the author attempts to show, by means of examples, the nature, capacity, and limitations of the logico-analytical method in philosophy. They are on "Current Tendencies," "Logic as the Essence of Philosophy," "Our Knowledge of the External World," "The Problem of Infinity Considered Historically," "The Positive Theory of Infinity," and "The Notion of Cause, with Applications to the Free-Will Problem." These lectures are written, as the Mathematical Gazette says, with that clearness, force, and subtle humor that readers of Mr. Russell's other works have learnt to expect; and are the first publication on Mr. Russell's new line of the study of the foundations of physics.

"THE book of the year It is in every sense an epoch-making book." — Cambridge Magazine.

"His method interests by the success with which it approximates philosophy to science.... These able and suggestive lectures will introduce thoughtful readers to a tract of speculative inquiry not yet much opened up, which promises good results to one with philosophic interests and scientific training." — Scotsman.

"This brilliant, lucid, amusing book, which, in spite of a few stiff passages, every one can understand." — The New Statesman.

"In some respects the most important contribution that has been made to philosophy for a long time past. The whole book is of extreme interest, and it abounds in good sayings." — The International Journal of Ethics.

"The author maintains the fresh and brilliant yet easy style which always makes his writings a pleasure to read." — Nature.

"This book, though intentionally somewhat popular in tone, contains most important and interesting contribution to philosophy." — Mind.

A BOOK OF COMMANDING IMPORTANCE

Professor John Dewey of Columbia University of New York, in the July Philosophical Review, writes as follows concerning Mr. Bertrand Russell's recent book:

"There are many ways of stating the problem of the existence of an external world. I shall make that of Mr. Bertrand Russell the basis of my examinations, as it is set forth in his recent book, Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy. I do this both because his statement is one recently made in a book of commanding importance, and because it seems to me to be a more careful statement than most of those in vogue."

Professor Bernard Bosanquet speaks of the same book as follows:

"This book consists of lectures delivered as "Lowell Lectures" in Boston, in March and April, 1914. It is so attractive in itself, and its author is so well known, that I think by this time it may be 'taken as read,' and I may offer some discussion without a preliminary abstract."

All bookstores or sent on receipt of price

The Open Court Publishing Company
122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.

***************

NOW READY
A Rare Treat for Booklovers
De Morgan's Budget of Paradoxes
By AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN
Edited with full bibliographical notes and index
By DAVID EUGENE SMITH
Teachers' College, Columbia University, New York

Two volumes, pp. 500 each. Cloth, $3.50 per vol.

THE BUDGET OF PARADOXES. As booklovers and those who delight to browse in fields that are quaint and curious know, there appeared in the nineteenth century no work that appealed to the tastes of their guild more powerfully than the delightful BUDGET OF PARADOXES of AUGUSTUS DE MORGAN. Originally written as a series of articles in THE ATHENAEUM, they were collected by Professor DE MORGAN just before his death and were published posthumously by his talented wife. As a piece of delicious satire upon the efforts of circlers of squares, and their kind, there is nothing else in English literature that is quite so good. Nor should it be thought that the work is technical because it speaks of the arrested mental development of the circle-squarers. On the contrary, while it is absolutely scientific in its conclusions, it is written in a popular style which anyone can appreciate and which has charmed many thousands of readers during the past half century.

THE PRESENT EDITION. The BUDGET OF PARADOXES was first written some fifty years ago. Many names which were common property in England at that time were little known abroad, and others have passed into oblivion even in their native land. Incidents which were subjects of general conversation then have long since been forgotten, so that some of the charm of the original edition would be lost on the reader of the present day had the publishers under- taken merely a reprint. The first edition having long since been exhausted but still being in great demand, it was decided to prepare a new one, and to issue it in a form becoming a work of this high rank. Accordingly, it was arranged to leave the original text intact, to introduce such captions and rubrics as should assist the reader in separating the general topics, and to furnish a set of footnotes which should supply him with as complete information as he might need with respect to the names and incidents mentioned in the text. The Publishers feel that the two large, well-printed volumes which they take pleasure in submitting to readers will prove a source of delight to all who peruse the pages of this unique work.

THE EDITOR. In preparing this edition, the Publishers sought for the man whose tastes, experience, and learning would best harmonize with those of Professor DE MORGAN himself. Accordingly they invited Professor DAVID EUGENE SMITH, Ph.D., LL.D., to undertake the work. Dr. SMITH is known for his KARA ARITHMETICA, which completed the early part of the work undertaken by DE MORGAN in his arithmetical books; for his PORTFOLIO OF EMINENT MATHEMATICIANS and for his part in the HISTORY OF JAPANESE MATHEMATICS and the translation of Fink's HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS, issued by the Open Court Publishing Company; and for his extensive writings on the history and teaching of mathematics and his contributions to text-book literature. Dr. Smith has worked in DE MORGAN'S library, is thoroughly familiar with all of DE MORGAN'S writings, and has a type of mind which is sympathetic with that of the author of the BUDGET. The Publishers therefore feel that they have been very fortunate in securing the one man who was best qualified to undertake con amore the preparation of this new edition.

VALUE TO PUBLIC LIBRARIES. Although the original edition of the BUDGET appealed rather to the searcher after the unique and bizarre than to one who wished for information as to men and things, the new edition may properly take its place among the valuable works of reference in our public libraries. The circle-squarers and the angle-trisectors are present everywhere and always, and a popular work that will show them their folly is a thing that every library should welcome. But aside from this, the great care taken by Dr. Smith in his biographical, bibliographical and historical notes renders the work invaluable on a shelf of general reference. His additions have so increased the size of the work that it has been found necessary to issue it in two volumes.

THE SELLING OF THE WORK. When we consider the fact that the work is even better known to general readers than to mathematicians, that it has long been out of print and has had a ready sale among dealers in rare books at prices ranging from $10.00 to $15.00, it will be seen that an edition like .the present one cannot fail to have a large sale, not merely in GREAT BRITAIN and her possessions, and in the UNITED STATES, but also among scholars in other countries as well.

THE READERS. As intimated above, the work appeals to an unusually wide range of readers. Of course every mathematician will wish for a copy, not because the work is on mathematics but because it was written by a curious-minded mathematician who delighted to satirize the pretended science of the circle-squarers. It will be read by the lover of delicious satire, because in this field it has few equals, and it will appeal to the general reader because of its style and the wide range of interests which Professor DE MORGAN showed in this, his best-known work. Such a book is written for all times and for all classes of readers, and it may well be ranked among the classics of our language.

The Open Court Publishing Company
122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.

***************

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
New and Forthcoming: Publications

A Short History o£ Japan. By Ernest Wilson Clement.
X, 190 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.00, postage extra (weight 15 oz.)

Senescence and Rejuvenescence. By Charles Manning Child.
xii, 482 pages, royal 8vo, cloth; $4.00, postage extra (weight 3 lbs.)

The Modern Study of Literature. By Richard Green Moulton.
xii, 532 pages, 12mo, cloth; $2.50, postage extra (weight 1 lb. 13 oz.)

Current Economic Problems, By Walton Hale Hamilton.
Svo, cloth; $2.75, postage extra.

Lives Worth Living. By Emily Clough Peabody.
xiv, 188 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.00, postage extra (weight lib. 4oz.)

University of Chicago Sermons. By Members of the University Faculties.
xii, 348 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.50, postage extra (weight 1 lb. 4 oz.)

Religious Education in the Family. By Henry Frederick Cope.
xii, 296 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.25, postage extra (weight 1 lb. 5 oz.)

First-Year Mathematics for Secondary Schools. Third revised edition. By Ernst R. Breslich.
12mo, cloth; $1.00, postage extra.

A Review of High School Mathematics. By William D. Reeve and Raleigh Schorling.
x, 70 pages, 12mo, cloth; 40 cents, postage extra (weight 10 oz.)

Methods in Plant Histology. Third revised edition. By Charles Joseph Chamberlain.
xii, 314 pages, Svo, cloth; $2.25, postage extra (weight 3 lbs.)

The School and Society. Second revised edition. By John Dewey.
xvi, 164 pages, 12mo, cloth; $1.00, postage extra (weight 15 oz.)

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO ILLINOIS

AGENTS:
THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY, NEW YORK
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, LONDON and EDINBURGH
KARL W. HIERSEMANN, LEIPZIG THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA, TOKYO, OSAKA, and KYOTO

***************

The European War of 1914: Its Causes, Purposes, and Probable Results
By JOHN WILLIAM BURGESS, Ph.D., J. U. D., LL. D.

Formerly Professor of Constitutional and International Law and Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science in Columbia University, New York City.

Professor Burgess considers the present Anti-German craze altogether unreasonable. He has studied the British White Paper, which gives, as he says, the British point of view, and he finds it a most unconvincing document. Discussing the immediate cause of the war he asserts that Austria had a just cause, and the demands she made upon Servia were not only reasonable, but she could not, as a self-respecting nation, have asked less.

He claims that the only reasonable construction to be placed upon the moves made by Sir Edward Grey preliminary to the outbreak of the war, is that they tended to fan the flame and that that astute minister unquestionably knew this. In support of this he shows by documentary proof that Sir Edward Grey encouraged Servia to resist Austria, and accepted Russia's claim of a protectorate over that Balkan nation.

German success in home development and in foreign markets, he says, brought to her the jealousy and spite of England, and this, he asserts, is really the primary cause of the war.

Compared with what we understand by Constitutional Government he finds the British Government a despotism, and contrasts it with the organization of the German Empire, which he states is not only more efficient but more genuinely democratic, asserting further that the German system is best calculated to give mankind prosperity and peace. The German Emperor, he declares, is a truly great man, exceedingly intelligent and highly cultured.

In relation to American interests in the war, he points out that the much derided German militarism was very useful to us in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and that without it the results might have been different. Against this he sets the fact that Great Britain's attitude toward us has always, during a crisis, been that of an enemy and against us. He claims that every true American interest requires the maintenance of the German Empire in its present organization and power in Middle Europe.

He favors the idea that our next formulation of the Monroe Doctrine will be that there shall be no colonial dependencies in North America of any European power. Canada, as at present constituted, is a danger to us.

Belgian neutrality also receives his attention, and he asserts that Belgium has Great Britain to thank for every drop of blood shed by her people and for all her devastation.

CHAPTER CONTENTS

I. The Occasions of the War.
II. The Proximate Causes of the War.
III. The Underlying Causes of the War.
IV. American Interests in the Outcome of the War.
V. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Crime at Sarajevo.
VI. Belgian Neutrality.
VII. The Export of Arms and Munitions to Belligerents.
VIII. The German Emperor.

Price $1.00, postage extra
Mailing weight, 14 ounces

The Open Court Publishing Company
122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.

***************

Psychoanalytic Review
Edited by Drs. Wm. A. White and Smith Ely Jelliffe

A QUARTERLY JOURNAL founded in 1913 devoted to the understanding of human conduct, with especial reference to the problems of psychopathology. Human motives, especially in their unconscious manifestations, will receive special attention as they appear in the normal as well as abnormal fields.

PRICE, $5.00 PER VOLUME

Contents of the July Number

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Psychoanalysis. C. G. Jung.
Role of Sexual Complex in Dementia Praecox. Jas. C. Hassall.

Psycho-Genetics of Androcratic Evolution. Theo. Schroeder.

Technique of Psychoanalysis. Smith Ely Jelliffe.

TRANSLATIONS

Significance of Psychoanalysis for the Mental Sciences. Otto Rank and Hanns Sachs.

Wishfulfillment and Symbolism in Fairy Tales. Franz Riklin.

ABSTRACTS.

Book Reviews. Varia.

Orders received at any time at

Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.
64 West 56th Street, New York

***************

The Journal of Philosophy Psychology and Scientific Methods

There is no similar journal in the field of scientific philosophy. It is issued fortnightly and permits the quick publication of short contributions, prompt reviews, and timely discussions. The contents of recent issues include the following:

Psychological Doctrine and Philosophical Teaching. John Dewey.

Time and Pure Activity. Walter B. Pitkin.

The Function and Scope of Social Philosophy. Harry Allen Overstreet.

History versus Value. Morris R. Cohen.

The Pulse of Life. Edgar A. Singer, Jr.

The Vice of Modern Philosophy. W. H. Sheldon.

Philosophic Sanction of Ambition. George Santayana.

Natural Rights and the Theory of the Political Institution. George H. Mead.

The Principle of International Ethics. A. C. Armstrong.

Forthcoming numbers will contain important articles by Professors J. T. Shotwell, Roy Wood Sellars, George H. Sabine, H. B. Alexander, Theodore de Laguna, John Dewey, H. A. Overstreet, James H. Leuba, and Edwin B. Holt.

The Journal of Philosophy Psychology and Scientific Methods
Substation 84, New York City

$3.00 per annum (26 numbers) 15 cents per copy

***************

THE INTERNATIONAL
Edited by GEORGE SYLVESTER VIERECK

A MAGAZINE OF LIFE AND LETTERS

This remarkable stirring monthly will wake you up and make you think. It is a protest against mediocrity and smug complacency. The foremost writers in the world contribute to this unique publication.

Here are some of the authors who have written for THE INTERNATIONAL:

Rabindranath Tagore
Aleister Crowley
Gerhart Hauptmann
Brieux
George Bernard Shaw
Chesterton
Arthur Schnitzler
Arthur Symons
Houston Stewart Chamberlain
Benjamin De Casseres
Prof. Aleis Brandl
Hanns Heinz Ewers
Daniel Carson Goodman
T. Everett Harre
Joseph Bernard Rethy
Herman Sudermann
Frank Harris

and many other brilliant writers from all over the world.

Special Offer, $1 for 10 Months
15 Cents a copy — $1.50 a year

THE INTERNATIONAL
1123 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY

***************

Publications of the American Mathematical Society

TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY. The Transactions is devoted to research in pure and applied mathematics and is the official organ of the Society for the publication of important original papers. Published quarterly. Subscription price for the annual volume, $5.00.

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY. Devoted largely to critical reviews of mathematical books, the Bulletin also contains reports of the meetings of the Society and of other mathematical bodies, short original papers, reports on progress in the science, lists of new publications, and notes on current events in the mathematical world. Published monthly, except August and September. Subscription price for the annual volume, $5.00.

THE EVANSTON COLLOQUIUM LECTURES. Delivered at the Chicago Congress of Mathematics, 1893, by Felix Klein. Republished by the Society, 1911. Price, 75 cents.

THE BOSTON COLLOQUIUM LECTURES. Delivered before the Society, Boston, 1903, by H. S. White, F. S. Woods, and E. B. Van Vleck. Price, $2.00.

THE NEW HAVEN MATHEMATICAL COLLOQUIUM. 1906. By E. H. Moore, E. J. Wilczynski, and Max Mason. $3.00.

THE PRINCETON COLLOQUIUM LECTURES. 1909. By. G. A. Bliss and Edward Kasner. $1.50.

THE MADISON COLLOQUIUM LECTURES. 1913. By L. E. Dickson and W. F. Osgood. $2.00

Circulars sent on request. Address all orders to

American Mathematical Society
501 West 116th Street, New York City

The American Mathematical Society was organized in 1894 and includes among its 700 members nearly all the mathematicians of the United States. The annual dues are $5.00; admission fee, $5.00. Members receive the Bulletin without further charge, and are entitled to a reduced price on the other publications of the Society. Meetings are held ten times a year in New York, Chicago, and other cities. The Society has a library of over 5000 volumes.

***************

LEARN THE LAWS OF HEREDITY

"An exact determination of the laws of heredity will probably work more change in man's outlook on the world, and in his power over nature, than any other advance in natural knowledge that can be clearly foreseen." — William Bateson, late president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

Biologists and mathematicians have united to open this field of knowledge during recent years. The discoveries which they have made find their application not only in the improvement of races of cultivated plants and domesticated animals, but in the interpretation of human society and the racial improvement of Man.

The American Genetic Association, founded in 1903. has led in making known the research in this branch of science. Its publications form the most valuable collection which has appeared in the United States, of genetic literature for the scientist, teacher, publicist, physician, clergyman, student, horticulturist, breeder of live-stock. Five volumes of its proceedings are out of print, but a limited number of the remaining three are now on sale at half the original price.

Vol. VI (1910) contains 465 pages, illustrated. It includes 80 papers on general genetics, plant-breeding, animal-breeding, eugenics, and among the contributors are practically all the leaders in this study in the United States. Send for table of contents. Issued at $2.00, now offered at $1.00.

Vol. VII (1911) and Vol. VIII (1912), bound in one volume of 593 pages, illustrated, and including 73 papers on the most vital and interesting features of genetics. Each paper is written by a specialist, and in most cases describes the result of original work. Issued at $3.00, now offered at $1.50.

Some back numbers of the American Breeders' Magazine and Journal of Heredity are also available.

Address

THE AMERICAN GENETIC ASSOCIATION
511 Eleventh Street Northwest, Washington, D. C.

***************

Goethe; With Special Consideration of His Philosophy

This voluminous and richly illustrated work by Dr. Paul Carus describes Goethe the poet, the thinker and the man, and brings to light many interesting features which have hitherto been little heeded. Cloth, $3.00

Friedrich Schiller

"This adequately illustrated and tastefully bound volume by Dr. Paul Carus is an admirable memorial of the recent Schiller Centenary. In addition to a biographical sketch we have two thoughtful essays by Dr. Carus on Schiller as a philosophical poet and on Schiller's poetry. Both have well-chosen selections of considerable ex- tent, and it was a good idea to present these illustrative excerpts in both German and English." — The Outlook.
Boards, 75 cents



Goethe and Schiller's Xenions
Second revised edition.

A collection of satirical epigrams selected and translated by Paul Carus. Goethe and Schiller were great friends, and their "Xenions" were written in a spirit of what they called "poetical deviltry." These pithy aphorisms are household words in Germany and deserve a place of honor in the literature of the world. Cloth, $1.00

THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING COMPANY
Chicago and London

***************

THE SCIENCE PRESS
SCHOOL AND SOCIETY

A weekly journal which began publication on January 2, 1915, covering the whole field of education in relation to the problems of American democracy. Its objects are the advancement of education as a science and the adjustment of our lower and higher schools to the needs of modern life. Each number will ordinarily contain articles and addresses of some length, shorter contributions, discussion and correspondence, reviews and abstracts, reports and quotations, proceedings of societies and a department of educational notes and news.
Annual subscription $3.00; single copies 10 cents

SCIENCE

A weekly journal, established in 1883, devoted to the advancement of the natural and exact sciences, the official organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. For twenty years Science has been conducted by its present editor, on the lines which will be followed by School and Society, and is now generally regarded as the professional journal of American men of science.
Annual subscription $5.00; single copies 15 cents

THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY
An illustrated magazine, established in 1872, devoted to the diffusion of science, publishing articles by leading authorities in all departments of pure and applied science, including the applications of science to education and society.
Annual subscription $3.00; single copies 30 cents

THE AMERICAN NATURALIST
A monthly journal, established in 1867, devoted to the biological sciences with special reference to the factors of organic evolution.
Annual subscription $4.00; single copies 40 cents

AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE
A biographical directory, containing the records of about 5,500 scientific men.
Price, $5.00 net

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
A series of volumes for the promotion of scientific research and educational progress.

Volume I. The Foundations of Science. By H. Poincare. Containing the authorized English translation by George Bruce Halsted of "Science and Hypothesis," "The Value of Science," and "Science and Method." ' Price, $3.00 net

Volume II. Medical Research and Education. By Richard Mills Pearce, William H. Welch, C. S. Minot and other authors. Price, $3.00 net

Volume III. University Control. By J. McKcen Cattell and other authors. Price, $3.00 net

THE SCIENCE PRESS
Lancaster, Pa., Sub-Station 84, New York City, Garrison, N. Y.

To THE SCIENCE PRESS
Lancaster, Pa., and Garrison, N. Y.
Please find enclosed check or money order for _____ in payment for the publications checked above.
Name _____
Address _____
Date _____

***************

Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series
Edited by DRS. SMITH ELY JELLIFFE and WM. A. WHITE

This series, of which twenty-one numbers have appeared, was designed to present to English speaking neurologists and psychiatrists, the leading, moving advances in their respective specialties. A list of the numbers thus far published follows.

No. 1. Outlines of Psychiatry. (Fourth Edition, 1913.) By WM. A. WHITE, M.D., Price $3.00.
A clearly written and concise presentation of psychiatry, especially adapted for use in teaching and in public institutions for mental diseases.

No. 4. Selected Papers on Hysteria and Other Psychoneuroses. (Second Edition, 1912.) By PROF. S. FREUD, M.D., Price $2.50. Tr. by Dr. A. A. Brill.
A selection of some of the more important of Freud's writings.

No. 5. Wassermann Serum Reaction in Psychiatry. By FELIX PLAUT, M.D., Price $2.00. Tr. by Drs. Jelliffe and Casamajor.
A most complete setting forth of the principles of the Wassermann Reaction by one of the original investigators in this field, especially adapted for laboratories and for use in institutions.

No. 7. Three Contributions to Sexual Theory. By PROF. SIGMUND FREUD, Price $2.00. Tr. by Dr. A. A. Brill.
A most important contribution to the psychology of psycho-sexual development.

No. 9. Studies in Psychiatry. By Members of the New York Psychiatrical Society, Price $2.00. (Illustrated.)
A collection of papers on different psychiatric subjects written by Members of the New York Psychiatrical Society.

No. 11. The Theory of Schizophrenic Negativism. By PROF. E. BLEULER, Price $.60. Tr. by Dr. W. A. White.
A short exposition of the author's theory of autistic thinking as applied to the problem of negativism.

No. 12. Cerebellar Functions. By DR. ANDRE-THOMAS, Price $3.00. (Illustrated,) Tr. by Dr. C. Herring.
A complete summary of the anatomy and physiology of the cerebellum and their application to the problems of clinical medicine. The most complete work on the subject in English.

No. 13. History of the Prison Psychoses. By DRS. P. NITSCHE and K. WILMANNS, Price $1.25. Tr. by Drs. Barnes and Glueck.
The only complete exposition in English of the history of the prison psychoses and the present-day concept of this group of mental disturbances.

No. 14. General Paresis. By PROF. E. KRAEPELIN, Price $3.00. (Illustrated.) Tr. by Dr. J. W. Moore.
A masterly presentation of the subject of general paresis by the renowned Munich professor.

No. 15. Dreams and Myths. By DR. KARL ABRAHAM, Price $1.00. Tr. by Dr. W. A. White.
A very lucid presentation of Freud's theory of dreams and the application of the principles of dream interpretation to the understanding of certain myths. A study in comparative mythology from the standpoint of dream psychology.

No. 16. Poliomyelitis. By DR. I. WICKMANN, Price $2.00. (Illustrated.) Tr. by Dr. W. J. Maloney.
A complete exposition of the poliomyelitis situation.

No. 17. Freud's Theories of the Neuroses. By DR. E. HITSCHMANN, Price $2.00. Tr. by Dr. C. H. Payne.
A brief and clear summary of Freud's theories and their application to the problems of the neuroses and the psychoneouroses.

No. 18. The Myth of the Birth of the Hero. By DR. O. RANK, Price $1.00.
A psychological interpretation of mythology. Tr. by Drs. F. Robbins and Smith Ely Jeliffe.

No. 19. The Theory of Psychoanalysis. By DR. C. JUNG, Price $1.50.
A concise statement of the present aspects of the psychoanalytic hypotheses.

Order accompanied by cash, P. O. order, check or Express order should be sent to

Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing: Co.
64 W. 56th St., New York.

***************

Timely Editorial in the Chicago Tribune and a Timely Book for American Citizens

THE constitution of the United States provides specifically that, the power to declare war rests with congress. By evasion the president can create a condition whereby war must follow, or by blundering he may bring war upon us through the initiative of another country. The first course is immoral, the second is inane. We do not believe that President Wilson is either.

If President Wilson contemplates making war or contemplates steps which might lead to war, the only thing for him to do is to call a special session of congress and lay before congress the situation as only he and his confidential advisers know it to be. Certainly it would lead to a nation-wide campaign. Certainly this would show a national division. But if war is contemplated public opinion should be consulted before taking any unredeemable step. Certainly men will be found who will assail the president for political and personal reasons, and even worse. Just as certainly men will be found who will sacrifice politics and personal interest for patriotism.

Finally, this nation has never faced the present international situation as a nation. The larger part of the public expression has been on the part of and spoken in the interests of or at least in sympathy with one or another of the foreign nations.

We have not as a nation considered our interests as a nation. We have never considered what a German victory would bring to us. We have never considered what an allied victory would mean to us. We have never considered the price of war. We have never considered the price of peace. The violent and objectionable agitation which must follow the consideration of these subjects in congress will compel us for once to see our national interest.

Read the following book and reflect on its conclusions

PAN-AMERICANISM

By the Author of "PAN-GERMANISM"

ROLAND G. USHER'S forecast of the inevitable clash between the United States and Europe's victor

DO YOU REALIZE THAT to maintain the Monroe Doctrine will compel us to declare war on Europe's victor?

DO YOU KNOW THAT the Monroe Doctrine was aimed at England and not at Spain?

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT it has defended South America in the past?

DO YOU REALIZE THAT the United States may lie at the mercy of Europe's victor?

DO YOU KNOW THAT she may be defended without the firing of a shot by either army or navy?

Price $2.00 Net, Postage 10 Cents

The Open Court Publishing Company
CHICAGO

 

[admin]

Evelyn Underhill
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/26/20

By the mid-1890s, the Golden Dawn was well established in Great Britain, with over one hundred members from every class of Victorian society. Many celebrities belonged to the Golden Dawn, such as the actress Florence Farr, the Irish revolutionary Maud Gonne, the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, the Welsh author Arthur Machen, and the English authors Evelyn Underhill and Aleister Crowley.

-- Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, by Wikipedia

Evelyn Underhill
Born: 6 December 1875, Wolverhampton, England
Died: 15 June 1941 (aged 65), London, England
Occupation: Novelist, writer, mystic
Genre: Christian mysticism, spirituality
Notable works: Mysticism

Evelyn Underhill (6 December 1875 – 15 June 1941) was an English Anglo-Catholic writer and pacifist known for her numerous works on religion and spiritual practice, in particular Christian mysticism.

In the English-speaking world, she was one of the most widely read writers on such matters in the first half of the 20th century. No other book of its type—until the appearance in 1946 of Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy—met with success to match that of her best-known work, Mysticism, published in 1911.[1]

Biography

Underhill was born in Wolverhampton. She was a poet and novelist, as well as a pacifist and mystic. An only child, she described her early mystical insights as "abrupt experiences of the peaceful, undifferentiated plane of reality—like the 'still desert' of the mystic—in which there was no multiplicity nor need of explanation".[2] The meaning of these experiences became a lifelong quest and a source of private angst, provoking her to research and write.

Both her father and her husband were writers (on the law), London barristers, and yachtsmen. She and her husband, Hubert Stuart Moore, grew up together and were married on 3 July 1907. The couple had no children. She travelled regularly within Europe, primarily Switzerland, France and Italy, where she pursued her interests in art and Catholicism, visiting numerous churches and monasteries. Neither her husband (a Protestant) nor her parents shared her interest in spiritual matters.

Underhill was called simply "Mrs Moore" by many of her friends, but was not without her detractors[citation needed]. She was a prolific author and published over 30 books either under her maiden name, Underhill, or under the pseudonym "John Cordelier", as was the case for the 1912 book The Spiral Way. Initially an agnostic, she gradually began to acquire an interest in Neoplatonism and from there was increasingly drawn to Catholicism against the objections of her husband, eventually becoming a prominent Anglo-Catholic. Her spiritual mentor from 1921 to 1924 was Baron Friedrich von Hügel, who was appreciative of her writing yet concerned with her focus on mysticism and who encouraged her to adopt a much more Christocentric view as opposed to the theistic and intellectual one she had previously held. She described him as "the most wonderful personality. ..so saintly, truthful, sane and tolerant" (Cropper, p. 44) and was influenced by him toward more charitable, down-to-earth activities. After his death in 1925, her writings became more focused on the Holy Spirit and she became prominent in the Anglican Church as a lay leader of spiritual retreats, a spiritual director for hundreds of individuals, guest speaker, radio lecturer, and proponent of contemplative prayer.

Underhill came of age in the Edwardian era, at the turn of the 20th century and, like most of her contemporaries, had a decided romantic bent. The enormous excitement in those days was mysteriously compounded of the psychic, the psychological, the occult, the mystical, the medieval, the advance of science, the apotheosis of art, the re-discovery of the feminine, the unashamedly sensuous, and the most ethereally "spiritual" (Armstrong, p. xiii–xiv). Anglicanism seemed to her out-of-key with this, her world. She sought the centre of life as she and many of her generation conceived it, not in the state religion, but in experience and the heart. This age of "the soul" was one of those periods when a sudden easing of social taboos brings on a great sense of personal emancipation and desire for an El Dorado despised by an older, more morose and insensitive generation.[1]

As an only child, she was devoted to her parents and, later, to her husband. She was fully engaged in the life of a barrister's daughter and wife, including the entertainment and charitable work that entailed, and pursued a daily regimen that included writing, research, worship, prayer and meditation. It was a fundamental axiom of hers that all of life was sacred, as that was what "incarnation" was about.

She was a cousin of Francis Underhill, Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Education

Underhill was educated at home, except for three years at a private school in Folkestone, and subsequently read history and botany at King's College London. She was conferred with an honorary Doctorate of Divinity from Aberdeen University and made a fellow of King's College. She was the first woman to lecture to the clergy in the Church of England as well as the first woman officially to conduct spiritual retreats for the Church. She was also the first woman to establish ecumenical links between churches and one of the first woman theologians to lecture in English colleges and universities, which she did frequently. Underhill was an award-winning bookbinder, studying with the most renowned masters of the time. She was schooled in the classics, well read in Western spirituality, well informed (in addition to theology) in the philosophy, psychology, and physics of her day, and was a writer and reviewer for The Spectator.

Early work

Before undertaking many of her better known expository works on mysticism, she first published a small book of satirical poems on legal dilemmas, The Bar-Lamb's Ballad Book, which received a favorable welcome. Underhill then wrote three highly unconventional though profoundly spiritual novels. Like Charles Williams and later, Susan Howatch, Underhill uses her narratives to explore the sacramental intersection of the physical with the spiritual. She then uses that sacramental framework very effectively to illustrate the unfolding of a human drama. Her novels are entitled The Grey World (1904), The Lost Word (1907), and The Column of Dust (1909). In her first novel, The Grey World, described by one reviewer as an extremely interesting psychological study, the hero's mystical journey begins with death, and then moves through reincarnation, beyond the grey world, and into the choice of a simple life devoted to beauty, reflecting Underhill's own serious perspective as a young woman.

It seems so much easier in these days to live morally than to live beautifully. Lots of us manage to exist for years without ever sinning against society, but we sin against loveliness every hour of the day.[3]

The Lost Word and The Column of Dust are also concerned with the problem of living in two worlds and reflect the writer's own spiritual challenges. In the 1909 novel, her heroine encounters a rift in the solid stuff of her universe:

She had seen, abruptly, the insecurity of those defences which protect our illusions and ward off the horrors of truth. She had found a little hole in the wall of appearances; and peeping through, had caught a glimpse of that seething pot of spiritual forces whence, now and then, a bubble rises to the surface of things.[4]

Underhill's novels suggest that perhaps for the mystic, two worlds may be better than one. For her, mystical experience seems inseparable from some kind of enhancement of consciousness or expansion of perceptual and aesthetic horizons—to see things as they are, in their meanness and insignificance when viewed in opposition to the divine reality, but in their luminosity and grandeur when seen bathed in divine radiance. But at this stage the mystic's mind is subject to fear and insecurity, its powers undeveloped. The first novel takes us only to this point. Further stages demand suffering, because mysticism is more than merely vision or cultivating a latent potentiality of the soul in cosy isolation. According to Underhill's view, the subsequent pain and tension, and final loss of the private painful ego-centered life for the sake of regaining one's true self, has little to do with the first beatific vision. Her two later novels are built on the ideal of total self-surrender even to the apparent sacrifice of the vision itself, as necessary for the fullest possible integration of human life. This was for her the equivalent of working out within, the metaphorical intent of the life story of Jesus. One is reunited with the original vision—no longer as mere spectator but as part of it. This dimension of self-loss and resurrection is worked out in The Lost Word, but there is some doubt as to its general inevitability. In The Column of Dust, the heroine's physical death reinforces dramatically the mystical death to which she has already surrendered. Two lives are better than one but only on the condition that a process of painful re-integration intervenes to re-establish unity between Self and Reality.[1]

All her characters derive their interest from the theological meaning and value which they represent, and it is her ingenious handling of so much difficult symbolic material that makes her work psychologically interesting as a forerunner of such 20th-century writers as Susan Howatch, whose successful novels also embody the psychological value of religious metaphor and the traditions of Christian mysticism. Her first novel received critical acclaim, but her last was generally derided. However, her novels give remarkable insight into what we may assume was her decision to avoid what St. Augustine described as the temptation of fuga in solitudinem ("the flight into solitude"), but instead acquiescing to a loving, positive acceptance of this world. Not looking back, by this time she was already working on her magnum opus.

Writings on religion

Mysticism (1911)

Underhill's greatest book, Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man's Spiritual Consciousness, was published in 1911, and is distinguished by the very qualities which make it ill-suited as a straightforward textbook. The spirit of the book is romantic, engaged, and theoretical rather than historical or scientific. Underhill has little use for theoretical explanations and the traditional religious experience, formal classifications or analysis. She dismisses William James' pioneering study, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), and his "four marks of the mystic state" (ineffability, noetic quality, transience, and passivity). James had admitted that his own constitution shut him off almost entirely from the enjoyment of mystical states, thus his treatment was purely objective. Underhill substituted (1) mysticism is practical, not theoretical, (2) mysticism is an entirely spiritual activity, (3) the business and method of mysticism is love, and (4) mysticism entails a definite psychological experience. Her insistence on the psychological approach was that it was the glamorous science of the pre-war period, offering the potential key to the secrets of human advances in intelligence, creativity, and genius, and already psychological findings were being applied in theology (i.e., William Sanday's Christologies Ancient and Modern).[1]

She divided her subject into two parts: the first, an introduction, and the second, a detailed study of the nature and development of human consciousness. In the first section, in order to free the subject of mysticism from confusion and misapprehension, she approached it from the point of view of the psychologist, the symbolist and the theologian. To separate mysticism from its most dubious connection, she included a chapter on mysticism and magic. At the time, and still today, mysticism is associated with the occult, magic, secret rites, and fanaticism, while she knew the mystics throughout history to be the world's spiritual pioneers.

She divided her map of "the way" into five stages: the first was the "Awakening of Self". She quotes Henry Suso (disciple of Meister Eckhart):

That which the Servitor saw had no form neither any manner of being; yet he had of it a joy such as he might have known in the seeing of shapes and substances of all joyful things. His heart was hungry, yet satisfied, his soul was full of contentment and joy: his prayers and his hopes were fulfilled. (Cropper p. 46)

Underhill tells how Suso's description of how the abstract truth (related to each soul's true nature and purpose), once remembered, contains the power of fulfilment became the starting point of her own path. The second stage she presents as psychological "Purgation of Self", quoting the Theologia Germanica (14th century, anonymous) regarding the transcendence of ego (Underhill's "little self"):

We must cast all things from us and strip ourselves of them and refrain from claiming anything for our own.

The third stage she titles "Illumination" and quotes William Law:

Everything in ...nature, is descended out that which is eternal, and stands as a. ..visible outbirth of it, so when we know how to separate out the grossness, death, and darkness. ..from it, we find. ..it in its eternal state.

The fourth stage she describes as the "Dark Night of the Soul" (which her correspondence leads us to believe she struggled with throughout her life) wherein one is deprived of all that has been valuable to the lower self, and quoting Mechthild of Magdeburg:

...since Thou hast taken from me all that I had of Thee, yet of Thy grace leave me the gift which every dog has by nature: that of being true to Thee in my distress, when I am deprived of all consolation. This I desire more fervently than Thy heavenly Kingdom.

And last she devotes a chapter to the unitive life, the sum of the mystic way:

When love has carried us above all things into the Divine Dark, there we are transformed by the Eternal Word Who is the image of the Father; and as the air is penetrated by the sun, thus we receive in peace the Incomprehensible Light, enfolding us, and penetrating us. (Ruysbroech)

Where Underhill struck new ground was in her insistence that this state of union produced a glorious and fruitful creativeness, so that the mystic who attains this final perfectness is the most active doer – not the reclusive dreaming lover of God.

We are all the kindred of the mystics. ..Strange and far away from us though they seem, they are not cut off from us by some impassable abyss. They belong to us; the giants, the heroes of our race. As the achievement of genius belongs not to itself only but also to the society that brought it forth;...the supernal accomplishment of the mystics is ours also. ..our guarantee of the end to which immanent love, the hidden steersman. ..is moving. ..us on the path toward the Real. They come back to us from an encounter with life's most august secret. ..filled with amazing tidings which they can hardly tell. We, longing for some assurance. ..urge them to pass on their revelation. ..the old demand of the dim-sighted and incredulous. ..But they cannot. ..only fragments of the Symbolic Vision. According to their strength and passion, these lovers of the Absolute. ..have not shrunk from the suffering. ..Beauty and agony have called. ..have awakened a heroic response. For them the winter is over. ..Life new, unquenchable and lovely comes to meet them with the dawn. (Cropper, p. 47)

The book ends with an extremely valuable appendix, a kind of who's who of mysticism, which shows its persistence and interconnection from century to century.

Ruysbroeck (1914)

A work by Evelyn Underhill, on the 14th-century Flemish mystic Jan van Ruusbroec (1293–1381), entitled Ruysbroeck was published in London in 1914.[5] She had discussed him from several different perspectives during the course of her 1911 book on Mysticism.

I. Life. She starts with a biography, drawn mainly from two near-contemporary works on his life, each written by a fellow monastic: Pomerius,[6] and Gerard Naghel.[7]

His childhood was spent in the village of Ruysbroeck. [page 7] At eleven he ran away to Brussels, where he began to live with his uncle, John Hinckaert, a Canon at the Cathedral of St. Gudule, and a younger Canon, Francis van Coudenberg. [10] At twenty-four he was ordained a priest and became a prebend at St. Gudule. [12] At his first mass he envisioned his mother's spirit released from Purgatory and entering Heaven. [15] From age 26 to 50 Ruysbroeck was a cathedral chaplain at St. Gudule. [15] Although he "seemed a nobody to those who did not know him", he was developing a strong spiritual life, "a penetrating intellect, a fearless heart, deep knowledge of human nature, remarkable powers of expression". [17] At one point he wrote strong pamphlets and led a campaign against a heretical group, the Brethren of the Free Spirit led by Bloemardinne, who practiced a self-indulgent "mysticality". [18–20] Later, with the two now elderly Canons, he moved into the countryside at Groenendael ("Green Valley"). [21–22] Pomerius writes that he retired not to hide his light "but that he might tend it better" [22]. Five years later their community became a Priory under the Augustinian Canons. [23]

Many of his works were written during this period, often drawing lessons from nature. [24] He had a favorite tree under which he would sit and write what the 'Spirit' gave to him. [25] He solemnly affirmed that his works were composed under the "domination of an inspiring power", writes Underhill. [26] Pomerius says that Ruysbroeck could enter a state of contemplation in which he appeared surrounded by radiant light. [26–27] Alongside his spiritual ascent, Naghel says, he cultivated the friendship of those around him, enriching their lives. [27–28] He worked in the garden fields of the priory, and sought to help out creatures of the forest. [29–30] He moved from the senses to the transcendent without frontiers or cleavage, Underhill writes, these being for him "but two moods within the mind of God". [30] He counseled many who came to him, including Gerard Groot of the Brothers of the Common Life. [31] His advice would plumb the "purity and direction" of the seeker's will, and the seeker's love. [32] There, at Groenendael, he finally made a "leap to a more abundant life". [34] In The Sparkling Stone Ruysbroeck wrote about coming to know the love "which giveth more than one can take, and asketh more than one can pay". [34]

II. Works. Next, Underhill gives a bibliography of Ruysbroeck's eleven admittedly authentic works, providing details concerning each work's origin, nature, and contents, as well as their place in his writings. 1. The Spiritual Tabernacle; 2. The Twelve Points of True Faith; 3. The Book of the Four Temptations; 4. The Book of the Kingdom of God's Lovers; 5. The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage;[8] 6. The Mirror of Eternal Salvation or Book of the Blessed Sacraments; 7. The Seven Cloisters; 8. The Seven Degrees of the Ladder of Love; 9. The Book of the Sparkling Stone; 10. The Book of the Supreme Truth; 11. The Twelve Béguines. [36–51]

III. Doctrine of God. Several types of mystics are described. The first (e.g., St. Teresa) deals with personal psychological experiences and emotional reactions, leaving the nature of God to existing theology. [page 52] The second (e.g., Plotinus) has passion sprung from the vision of a philosopher; the intellect often is more active than the heart, yet like a poet such a mystic strives to sketch his vision of the Ultimate. [53] The greatest mystics (e.g., St. Augustine) embrace at once "the infinite and the intimate" so that "God is both near and far, and the paradox of transcendent-immanent Reality is a self-evident if an inexpressible truth." Such mystics "give us by turns a subjective and psychological, an objective and metaphysical, reading of spiritual experience." Here is Ruysbroeck. [53–54]

An apostolic mystic [55] represents humanity in its quest to discern the Divine Reality, she writes, being like "the artist extending our universe, the pioneer cutting our path, the hunter winning food for our souls." [56] Yet, although his experience is personal, his language is often drawn from tradition. [57] His words about an ineffable Nature of God, "a dim silence, and a wild desert," may be suggestive, musical, she writes, "which enchant rather than inform the soul". [58] Ruysbroeck goes venturing "to hover over that Abyss which is 'beyond Reason,' stammering and breaking into wild poetry in the desperate attempt to seize the unseizable truth." [55] "[T]he One is 'neither This nor That'." [61]

"God as known by man" is the Absolute One who combines and resolves the contradictory natures of time and eternity, becoming and being; who is both transcendent and immanent, abstract and personal, work and rest, the unmoved mover and movement itself. God is above the storm, yet inspires the flux. [59–60] The "omnipotent and ever-active Creator" who is "perpetually breathing forth His energetic Life in new births of being and new floods of grace." [60] Yet the soul may persist, go beyond this fruitful nature,[9] into the simple essence of God. There we humans would find that "absolute and abiding Reality, which seems to man Eternal Rest, the 'Deep Quiet of the Godhead,' the 'Abyss,' the 'Dim Silence'; and which we can taste indeed but never know. There, 'all lovers lose themselves'." [60]

The Trinity, according to Ruysbroeck, works in living distinctions, "the fruitful nature of the Persons." [61] The Trinity in itself is a Unity, yet a manifestation of the active and creative Divine, a Union of Three Persons, which is the Godhead. [60–61][10] Beyond and within the Trinity, or the Godhead, then, is the "fathomless Abyss" [60] that is the "Simple Being of God" that is "an Eternal Rest of God and of all created things." [61][11]

The Father is the unconditioned Origin, Strength and Power, of all things. [62] The Son is the Eternal Word and Wisdom that shines forth in the world of conditions. [62] The Holy Spirit is Love and Generosity emanating from the mutual contemplation of Father and Son. [62][12] The Three Persons "exist in an eternal distinction [emphasis added] for that world of conditions wherein the human soul is immersed". [63] By the acts of the Three Persons all created things are born; by the incarnation and crucifixion we human souls are adorned with love, and so to be drawn back to our Source. "This is the circling course of the Divine life-process." [63]

But beyond and above this eternal distinction lies "the superessential world, transcending all conditions, inaccessible to thought-- 'the measureless solitude of the Godhead, where God possesses Himself in joy.' This is the ultimate world of the mystic." [63–64] There, she continues, quoting Ruysbroeck:

"[W]e can speak no more of Father, Son and Holy Spirit nor of any creature; but only of one Being, which is the very substance of the Divine Persons. There were we all one before our creation; for this is our superessence... . There the Godhead is, in simple essence, without activity; Eternal Rest, Unconditioned Dark, the Nameless Being, the Superessence of all created things, and the simple and infinite Bliss of God and of all the Saints." [64][13]

"The simple light of this Being... includes and embraces the unity of the Divine Persons and the soul... ." It envelopes and irradiates the ground (movement) of human souls and the fruition of their adherence to God, finding union in the Divine life-process, the Rose. "And this is the union of God and the souls that love Him." [64–65][14]

IV. Doctrine of Humankind. For Ruysbroeck, "God is the 'Living Pattern of Creation' who has impressed His image on each soul, and in every adult spirit the character of that image must be brought from the hiddenness and realized." [66][15] The pattern is trinitarian; there are three properties of the human soul. First, resembling the Father, "the bare, still place to which consciousness retreats in introversion... ." [67] Second, following the Son, "the power of knowing Divine things by intuitive comprehension: man's fragmentary share in the character of the Logos, or Wisdom of God." [67–68] "The third property we call the spark of the soul. It is the inward and natural tendency of the soul towards its Source; and here do we receive the Holy Spirit, the Charity of God." [68].[16] So will God work within the human being; in later spiritual development we may form with God a Union, and eventually a Unity. [70–71][17]

The mighty force of Love is the 'very self-hood of God' in this mysterious communion. [72, 73] "As we lay hold upon the Divine Life, devour and assimilate it, so in that very act the Divine Life devours us, and knits us up into the mystical Body," she writes. "It is the nature of love," says Ruysbroeck, "ever to give and to take, to love and be loved, and these two things meet in whomsoever loves. Thus the love of Christ is both avid and generous... as He devours us, so He would feed us. If He absorbs us utterly into Himself, in return He gives us His very self again." [75–76][18] "Hungry love," "generous love," "stormy love" touches the human soul with its Divine creative energy and, once we become conscious of it, evokes in us an answering storm of love. "The whole of our human growth within the spiritual order is conditioned by the quality of this response; by the will, the industry, the courage, with which [we accept our] part in the Divine give-and-take." [74] As Ruysbroeck puts it:

That measureless Love which is God Himself, dwells in the pure deeps of our spirit, like a burning brazier of coal. And it throws forth brilliant and fiery sparks which stir and enkindle heart and senses, will and desire, and all the powers of the soul, with a fire of love; a storm, a rage, a measureless fury of love. These be the weapons with which we fight against the terrible and immense Love of God, who would consume all loving spirits and swallow them in Himself. Love arms us with its own gifts, and clarifies our reason, and commands, counsels and advises us to oppose Him, to fight against Him, and to maintain against Him our right to love, so long as we may. [74–75][19]

The drama of this giving and receiving Love constitutes a single act, for God is as an "ocean which ebbs and flows" or as an "inbreathing and outbreathing". [75, 76] "Love is a unifying power, manifested in motion itself, 'an outgoing attraction, which drags us out of ourselves and calls us to be melted and naughted in the Unity'; and all his deepest thoughts of it are expressed in terms of movement." [76][20]

Next, the spiritual development of the soul is addressed. [76–88] Ruysbroeck adumbrates how one may progress from the Active life, to the Interior life, to the Superessential life; these correspond to the three natural orders of Becoming, Being, and God, or to the three rôles of the Servant, the Friend, and the "hidden child" of God. [77, 85] The Active life focuses on ethics, on conforming the self's daily life to the Will of God, and takes place in the world of the senses, "by means". [78] The Interior life embraces a vision of spiritual reality, where the self's contacts with the Divine take place "without means". [78] The Superessential life transcends the intellectual plane, whereby the self does not merely behold, but rather has fruition of the Godhead in life and in love, at work and at rest, in union and in bliss. [78, 86, 87][21] The analogy with the traditional threefold way of Purgation, Illumination, and Union, is not exact. The Interior life of Ruysbroeck contains aspects of the traditional Union also, while the Superessential life "takes the soul to heights of fruition which few amongst even the greatest unitive mystics have attained or described." [78–79]

At the end of her chapter IV, she discusses "certain key-words frequent in Ruysbroeck's works," e.g., 'Fruition' [89], 'Simple' [89–90], 'Bareness' or 'Nudity' [90], and "the great pair of opposites, fundamental to his thought, called in the Flemish vernacular Wise and Onwise." [91–93][22] The Wise can be understood by the "normal man [living] within the temporal order" by use of "his ordinary mental furniture". [91] Yet regarding the Onwise he has "escaped alike from the tyrannies and comforts of the world" and made the "ascent into the Nought". [92][23] She comments, "This is the direct, unmediated world of spiritual intuition; where the self touches a Reality that has not been passed through the filters of sense and thought." [92] After a short quote from Jalālu'ddīn, she completes her chapter by presenting eighteen lines from Ruysbroeck's The Twelve Bêguines (cap. viii) which concern Contemplation:

Contemplation is a knowing that is in no wise ...
Never can it sink down into the Reason,
And above it can the Reason never climb. ...
It is not God,
But it is the Light by which we see Him.
Those who walk in the Divine Light of it
Discover in themselves the Unwalled.
That which is in no wise, is above Reason, not without it ...
The contemplative life is without amazement.
That which is in no wise sees, it knows not what;
For it is above all, and is neither This nor That. [93]

V, VI, VII, VIII. In her last four chapters, Underhill continues her discussion of Ruysbroeck, describing the Active Life [94–114], the Interior Life (Illumination and Destitution [115–135], Union and Contemplation [136–163]), and the Superessential Life [164–185].[24]

"The Mysticism of Plotinus" (1919)

An essay originally published in The Quarterly Review (1919),[25] and later collected in The Essentials of Mysticism and other essays (London: J. M. Dent 1920) at pp. 116–140.[26] Underhill here addresses Plotinus (204–270) of Alexandria and later of Rome.

A Neoplatonist as well as a spiritual guide, Plotinus writes regarding both formal philosophy and hands-on, personal, inner experience. Underhill makes the distinction between the geographer who draws maps of the mind, and the seeker who actually travels in the realms of spirit. [page 118] She observes that usually mystics do not follow the mere maps of metaphysicians. [page 117]

In the Enneads Plotinus presents the Divine as an unequal triune, in descending order: (a) the One, perfection, having nothing, seeking nothing, needing nothing, yet it overflows creatively, the source of being; [121] (b) the emitted Nous or Spirit, with intelligence, wisdom, poetic intuition, the "Father and Companion" of the soul; [121–122] and, (c) the emitted Soul or Life, the vital essence of the world, which aspires to communion with the Spirit above, while also directly engaged with the physical world beneath. [123]

People "come forth from God" and will find happiness once re-united, first with the Nous, later with the One. [125] Such might be the merely logical outcome for the metaphysician, yet Plotinus the seeker also presents this return to the Divine as a series of moral purgations and a shedding of irrational delusions, leading eventually to entry into the intuitively beautiful. [126] This intellectual and moral path toward a life aesthetic will progressively disclose an invisible source, the Nous, the forms of Beauty. [127] Love is the prevailing inspiration, although the One is impersonal. [128] The mystic will pass through stages of purification, and of enlightenment, resulting in a shift in the center of our being "from sense to soul, from soul to spirit," in preparation for an ultimate transformation of consciousness. [125, 127] Upon our arrival, we shall know ecstasy and "no longer sing out of tune, but form a divine chorus round the One." [129]

St. Augustine (354–430) criticizes such Neoplatonism as neglecting the needs of struggling and imperfect human beings. The One of Plotinus may act as a magnet for the human soul, but it cannot be said to show mercy, nor to help, or love, or redeem the individual on earth. [130] Other western mystics writing on the Neoplatonists mention this lack of "mutual attraction" between humanity and the unconscious, unknowable One. [130–131] In this regard Julian of Norwich (1342–1416) would write, "Our natural will is to have God, and the good-will of God is to have us." [130]

Plotinus leaves the problem of evil unresolved, but having no place in the blissful life; here, the social, ethical side of religion seems to be shorted. His philosophy does not include qualities comparable to the Gospel's divine "transfiguration of pain" through Jesus. [131] Plotinus "the self-sufficient sage" does not teach us charity, writes St. Augustine. [132]

Nonetheless, Underhill notes, Plotinus and Neoplatonism were very influential among the mystics of Christianity (and Islam). St. Augustine the Church Father was himself deeply affected by Plotinus, and through him the western Church. [133–135, 137] So, too, was Dionysius (5th century, Syria), whose writings would also prove very influential. [133, 135] As well were others, e.g., Erigena [135], Dante [136], Ruysbroeck [136, 138], Eckhart [138], and Boehme [139].

Worship (1936)

In her preface,[27] the author disclaims being "a liturgical expert". Neither is it her purpose to offer criticism of the different approaches to worship as practiced by the various religious bodies. Rather she endeavors to show "the love that has gone to their adornment [and] the shelter they can offer to many different kinds of adoring souls." She begins chapter one by declaring that "Worship, in all its grades and kinds, is the response of the creature to the Eternal: nor need we limit this definition to the human sphere. ...we may think of the whole of the Universe, seen and unseen, conscious and unconscious, as an act of worship."

The chapter headings give an indication of its contents.

Part I: 1. The Nature of Worship, 2. Ritual and Symbol, 3. Sacrament and Sacrifice, 4. The Character of Christian Worship, 5. Principles of Corporate Worship, 6. Liturgical Elements in Worship, 7. The Holy Eucharist: Its Nature, 8. The Holy Eucharist: Its Significance, 9. The Principles of Personal Worship.

Part II: 10. Jewish Worship, 11. The Beginnings of Christian Worship, 12. Catholic Worship: Western and Eastern, 13. Worship in the Reformed Churches, 14. Free Church Worship, 15. The Anglican Tradition. Conclusion.

Influences

Underhill's life was greatly affected by her husband's resistance to her joining the Catholic Church to which she was powerfully drawn. At first she believed it to be only a delay in her decision, but it proved to be lifelong. He was, however, a writer himself and was supportive of her writing both before and after their marriage in 1907, though he did not share her spiritual affinities. Her fiction was written in the six years between 1903–1909 and represents her four major interests of that general period: philosophy (neoplatonism), theism/mysticism, the Roman Catholic liturgy, and human love/compassion.[28] In her earlier writings Underhill often wrote using the terms "mysticism" and "mystics" but later began to adopt the terms "spirituality" and "saints" because she felt they were less threatening. She was often criticized for believing that the mystical life should be accessible to the average person.

Her fiction was also influenced by the literary creed expounded by her close friend Arthur Machen, mainly his Hieroglyphics of 1902, summarised by his biographer:

There are certain truths about the universe and its constitution – as distinct from the particular things in it that come before our observation – which cannot be grasped by human reason or expressed in precise words: but they can be apprehended by some people at least, in a semi-mystical experience, called ecstasy, and a work of art is great insofar as this experience is caught and expressed in it. Because, however, the truths concerned transcend a language attuned to the description of material objects, the expression can only be through hieroglyphics, and it is of such hieroglyphics that literature consists.

In Underhill's case the quest for psychological realism is subordinate to larger metaphysical considerations which she shared with Arthur Machen. Incorporating the Holy Grail into their fiction (stimulated perhaps by their association with Arthur Waite and his affiliation with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn), for Machen the Holy Grail was perhaps "the" hieroglyph, "the" crystallisation in one sacred emblem of all man's transcendental yearning, "the" gateway to vision and lasting appeasement of his discontents, while for her it was the center of atonement-linked meanings as she pointed out to Margaret Robinson in a letter responding to Robinson's criticism of Underhill's last novel:

Don't marvel at your own temerity in criticising. Why should you? Of course, this thing wasn't written for you – I never write for anyone at all, except in letters of direction! But, I take leave to think the doctrine contained in it is one you'll have to assimilate sooner or later and which won't do you any harm. It's not "mine" you know. You will find it all in Eckhart. ... They all know, as Richard of St Victor said, that the Fire of Love "burns." We have not fulfilled our destiny when we have sat down at a safe distance from it, purring like overfed cats, 'suffering is the ancient law of love' – and its highest pleasure into the bargain, oddly enough. ... A sponge cake and milk religion is neither true to this world nor to the next. As for the Christ being too august a word for our little hardships – I think it is truer that it is "so" august as to give our little hardships a tincture of Royalty once we try them up into it. I don't think a Pattern which was 'meek & lowly' is likely to fail of application to very humble and ordinary things. For most of us don't get a chance "but" the humble and ordinary: and He came that we might all have life more abundantly, according to our measure. There that's all![29]

Two contemporary philosophical writers dominated Underhill's thinking at the time she wrote "Mysticism": Rudolf Eucken and Henri Bergson. While neither displayed an interest in mysticism, both seemed to their disciples to advance a spiritual explanation of the universe. Also, she describes the fashionable creed of the time as "vitalism" and the term adequately sums up the prevailing worship of life in all its exuberance, variety and limitless possibility which pervaded pre-war culture and society. For her, Eucken and Bergson confirmed the deepest intuitions of the mystics. (Armstrong, Evelyn Underhill)

Among the mystics, Ruysbroeck was to her the most influential and satisfying of all the medieval mystics, and she found herself very much at one with him in the years when he was working as an unknown priest in Brussels, for she herself had also a hidden side.

His career which covers the greater part of the fourteenth century, that golden age of Christian Mysticism, seems to exhibit within the circle of a single personality, and carry up to a higher term than ever before, all the best attainments of the Middle Ages in the realm of Eternal life. The central doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood, and of the soul's power to become the Son of God, it is this raised to the nth degree of intensity...and demonstrated with the exactitude of the mathematician, and the passion of a poet, which Ruysbroeck gives us...the ninth and tenth chapters of The Sparkling Stone the high water mark of mystical literature. Nowhere else do we find such a combination of soaring vision with the most delicate and intimate psychological analysis. The old Mystic sitting under his tree, seems here to be gazing at and reporting to us the final secrets of that Eternal World... (Cropper, p. 57)

One of her most significant influences and important collaborations was with the Nobel Laureate, Rabindranath Tagore, the Indian mystic, author, and world traveler. They published a major translation of the work of Kabir (100 Poems of Kabir, calling Songs of Kabir) together in 1915, to which she wrote the introduction. He introduced her to the spiritual genius of India which she expressed enthusiastically in a letter:

This is the first time I have had the privilege of being with one who is a Master in the things I care so much about but know so little of as yet: & I understand now something of what your writers mean when they insist on the necessity and value of the personal teacher and the fact that he gives something which the learner cannot get in any other way. It has been like hearing the language of which I barely know the alphabet, spoken perfectly.(Letters)

They did not keep up their correspondence in later years. Both suffered debilitating illnesses in the last year of life and died in the summer of 1941, greatly distressed by the outbreak of World War II.

Evelyn in 1921 was to all outward appearances, in an assured and enviable position. She had been asked by the University of Oxford to give the first of a new series of lectures on religion, and she was the first woman to have such an honour. She was an authority on her own subject of mysticism and respected for her research and scholarship. Her writing was in demand, and she had an interesting and notable set of friends, devoted readers, a happy marriage and affectionate and loyal parents. At the same time she felt that her foundations were insecure and that her zeal for Reality was resting on a basis that was too fragile.

By 1939, she was a member of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship, writing a number of important tracts expressing her anti-war sentiment.

After returning to the Anglican Church, and perhaps overwhelmed by her knowledge of the achievements of the mystics and their perilous heights, her ten-year friendship with Catholic philosopher and writer Baron Friedrich von Hügel turned into one of spiritual direction. Charles Williams wrote in his introduction to her Letters: 'The equal swaying level of devotion and scepticism (related to the church) which is, for some souls, as much the Way as continuous simple faith is to others, was a distress to her...She wanted to be "sure." Writing to Von Hügel of the darkness she struggled with:

What ought I to do?...being naturally self-indulgent and at present unfortunately professionally very prosperous and petted, nothing will get done unless I make a Rule. Neither intellectual work nor religion give me any real discipline because I have a strong attachment to both. ..it is useless advising anything people could notice or that would look pious. That is beyond me. In my lucid moments I see only too clearly that the only possible end of this road is complete, unconditional self-consecration, and for this I have not the nerve, the character or the depth. There has been some sort of mistake. My soul is too small for it and yet it is at bottom the only thing that I really want. It feels sometimes as if, whilst still a jumble of conflicting impulses and violent faults I were being pushed from behind towards an edge I dare not jump over."[30]

In a later letter of 12 July the Baron's practical concerns for signs of strain in Evelyn's spiritual state are expressed. His comments give insight into her struggles:

I do not at all like this craving for absolute certainty that this or that experience of yours, is what it seems to yourself. And I am assuredly not going to declare that I am absolutely certain of the final and evidential worth of any of those experiences. They are not articles of faith. .. You are at times tempted to scepticism and so you long to have some, if only one direct personal experience which shall be beyond the reach of all reasonable doubt. But such an escape. ..would ...possibly be a most dangerous one, and would only weaken you, or shrivel you, or puff you up. By all means...believe them, if and when they humble and yet brace you, to be probably from God. But do not build your faith upon them; do not make them an end when they exist only to be a means...I am not sure that God does want a marked preponderance of this or that work or virtue in our life – that would feed still further your natural temperament, already too vehement. (Cropper biography)

Although Underhill continued to struggle to the end, craving certainty that her beatific visions were purposeful, suffering as only a pacifist can from the devastating onslaught of World War II and the Church's powerlessness to affect events, she may well have played a powerful part in the survival of her country through the influence of her words and the impact of her teachings on thousands regarding the power of prayer. Surviving the London Blitz of 1940, her health disintegrated further and she died in the following year. She is buried with her husband in the churchyard extension at St John-at-Hampstead in London.

More than any other person, she was responsible for introducing the forgotten authors of medieval and Catholic spirituality to a largely Protestant audience and the lives of eastern mystics to the English-speaking world. As a frequent guest on radio, her 1936 work The Spiritual Life was especially influential as transcribed from a series of broadcasts given as a sequel to those by Dom Bernard Clements on the subject of prayer. Fellow theologian Charles Williams wrote the introduction to her published Letters in 1943, which reveal much about this prodigious woman. Upon her death, The Times reported that on the subject of theology, she was "unmatched by any of the professional teachers of her day."

Veneration

Since 2000, the Church of England commemorates Underhill liturgically on 15 June. She is also honoured with a feast day in the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church (USA) on 15 June.

Publications

Poetry

• The Bar-Lamb's Ballad Book (1902). Online
• Immanence (1916). Online
• Theophanies (1916). Online

Novels

• The Grey World (1904). Reprint Kessinger Publishing, 1942: ISBN 0-7661-0158-4. Online
• The Lost Word (1907).
• The Column of Dust (1909). Online

Religion (non-fiction)

• The Miracles of Our Lady Saint Mary: Brought Out of Divers Tongues and Newly Set Forth in English (1906) Online
• Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man's Spiritual Consciousness (1911). Twelfth edition published by E. P. Dutton in 1930. Republished by Dover Publications in 2002 (ISBN 978-0-486-42238-1). See also online editions at Christian Classics Ethereal Library and at Wikisource.
• The Path of Eternal Wisdom. A mystical commentary on the Way of the Cross (1912).
• "Introduction" to her edition of the anonymous The Cloud of Unknowing (c. 1370) from the British Library manuscript [here entitled A Book of Contemplation the which is called the Cloud of Unknowing, in the which a Soul is oned with God] (London: John M. Walkins 1912); reprinted as Cloud of Unknowing (1998) [her "Introduction" at 5–37]; 2007: ISBN 1-60506-228-6; see her text at Google books.
• The Spiral Way. Being a meditation on the fifteen mysteries of the soul's ascent (1912).
• The Mystic Way. A psychological study of Christian origins (1914). Online
• Practical Mysticism. A Little Book for Normal People (1914); reprint 1942 (ISBN 0-7661-0141-X); reprinted by Vintage Books, New York 2003 [with Abba (1940)]: ISBN 0-375-72570-9; see text at Wikisource.
• Ruysbroeck (London: Bell 1915). Online
• "Introduction" to Songs of Kabir (1915) transl. by Rabindranath Tagore; reprint 1977 Samuel Weiser (ISBN 0-87728-271-4), text at 5–43.
• The Essentials of Mysticism and other essays (1920); reprint 1999 (ISBN 1-85168-195-7).[31]
• The Life of the Spirit and the Life of Today (1920). Online
• The Mystics of the Church (1925).
• Concerning the Inner Life (1927); reprint 1999 (ISBN 1-85168-194-9). Online
• Man and the Supernatural. A study in theism (1927).
• The House of the Soul (1929).
• The Light of Christ (1932).
• The Golden Sequence. A fourfold study of the spiritual life (1933).
• The School of Charity. Meditations on the Christian Creed (1934); reprinted by Longmans, London 1954 [with M.of S. (1938)].
• Worship (1936).
• The Spiritual Life (1936); reprint 1999 (ISBN 1-85168-197-3); see also online edition.
• The Mystery of Sacrifice. A study on the liturgy (1938); reprinted by Longmans, London 1954 [with S.of C. (1934)].
• Abba. A meditation on the Lord's Prayer (1940); reprint 2003 [with Practical Mysticism (1914)].
• The Letters of Evelyn Underhill (1943), as edited by Charles Williams; reprint Christian Classics 1989: ISBN 0-87061-172-0.
• Shrines and Cities of France and Italy (1949), as edited by Lucy Menzies.
• Fragments from an inner life. Notebooks of Evelyn Underhill (1993), as edited by Dana Greene.
• The Mysticism of Plotinus (2005) Kessinger offprint, 48 pages. Taken from The Essentials of Mysticism (1920).

Anthologies

• Fruits of the Spirit (1942) edited by R. L. Roberts; reprint 1982, ISBN 0-8192-1314-4
• Collected Papers of Evelyn Underhill (1946) edited by L. Menzies and introduced by L. Barkway.
• Lent with Evelyn Underhill (1964) edited by G. P. Mellick Belshaw.
• An Anthology of the Love of God. From the writings of Evelyn Underhill (1976) edited by L. Barkway and L. Menzies.
• The Ways of the Spirit (1990) edited by G. A. Brame; reprint 1993, ISBN 0-8245-1232-4
• Evelyn Underhill. Modern guide to the ancient quest for the Holy (1988) edited and introduced by D. Greene.
• Evelyn Underhill. Essential writings (2003) edited by E. Griffin.
• Radiance: A Spiritual Memoir (2004) edited by Bernard Bangley, ISBN 1-55725-355-2

See also

• John of Ruysbroeck
• John of the Cross

References

1. Armstrong, C.J.R., "Evelyn Underhill: An Introduction to Her Life and Writings", A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1975
2. Williams, Charles, editor, "The Letters of Evelyn Underhill", Longmans Green, pp. 122–23
3. Underhill, E., The Grey World, London: William Heinemann, 1904
4. Underhill, E., The Column of Dust, London: Methuen & Co., 1909
5. By G. Bell & Sons; since reprinted [no date, circa 2003] by Kessinger Publishing.
6. Canon Henricus Pomerius was prior of the monastery where Ruysbroeck resided, but two generations later; he spoke with several of those who had known Ruysbroeck well [pages 5–6] and may have based his history on the work of a contemporary of Ruysbroek.
7. Gerard Naghel was a contemporary and a close friend of Ruysbroeck, as well as being the neighboring prior; he wrote a shorter work about his life [6].
8. Also known as The Spiritual Espousals (e.g., Wiseman's translation in his John Ruusbroec (Paulist Press 1985); it is "the best known" of Ruysbroeck's works. [42].
9. "Fruition is one of the master-words of Ruysbroeck's thought," she observes. [page 59] Later she more fully discusses it, at [89].
10. Here, she comments, Ruysbroeck parallels the Hindu mystics, the Christian Neoplatonists, and Meister Eckhart. [61]
11. She quotes from The Twelve Béguines at cap. xiv.
12. "[F]or these two Persons are always hungry for love," she adds, quoting The Spiritual Marriage, lib. ii at cap. xxxvii.
13. She gives her source as The Seven Degrees of Love at cap. xiv.
14. She quotes from The Kingdom of God's Lovers at cap. xxix.
15. Evelyn Underhill here refers to Julian of Norwich and quotes her phrase on the human soul being "made Trinity, like to the unmade Blessed Trinity." Then our author makes the comparison of Ruysbroeck's uncreated Pattern of humankind to an archetype, and to a Platonic Idea. [68].
16. Here she quotes The Mirror of Eternal Salvation at cap. viii. Cf., [70].
17. She quotes Ruysbroeck, The Book of Truth at cap. xi, "[T]his union is in God, through grace and our homeward-tending love. Yet even here does the creature feel a distinction and otherness between itself and God in its inward ground." [71].
18. Quoting The Mirror of Eternal Salvation at cap. vii. She refers here to St. Francis of Assisi.
19. She again quotes from The Mirror of Eternal Salvation at cap. xvii.
20. Ruysbroeck, The Sparkling Stone at cap. x: quoted.
21. Re the Superessential life, citing The Twelve Béguines at cap. xiii [86]; and, The Seven Degrees of Love at cap. xiv [87].
22. These opposites are variously translated into English, Underhill sometimes favoring "in some wise" and "in no wise" or "conditioned' and "unconditioned" or "somehow" and "nohow". That is, the second opposite Onwise she gives it translated as no wise [93]. Cf., "Superessential" [85 & 86–87; 90–91].
23. Ruysbroeck, The Twelve Bêguines at cap. xii.
24. As mentioned, Underhill earlier addressed how Ruysbroeck distinguishes the Active, Interior, and Superessential at pages 76–88 in her book.
25. QR (1919) at 479–497.
26. Recently offprinted by Kessinger Publishing as The Mysticism of Plotinus (2005), 48 pages.
27. Evelyn Underhill, Worship (New York: Harper and Brothers 1936; reprint Harper Torchbook 1957) pp. vii–x.
28. name="Armstrong, C.J.R."
29. Armstrong, C. J. R., Evelyn Underhill: An Introduction to her Life and Writings, pp. 86–87, A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1975
30. Cropper, Margaret, Life of Evelyn Underhill, Harper & Brothers, 1958
31. This may be two different compilations, rather than a 1999 re-issue of the 1920 original.

Further reading

• A.M. Allchin, Friendship in God - The Encounter of Evelyn Underhill and Sorella Maria of Campello (SLG Press, Fairacres Oxford 2003)
• Margaret Cropper, The Life of Evelyn Underhill (New York 1958).
• Christopher J. R. Armstrong, Evelyn Underhil (1875–1941). An introduction to her life and writings (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1976).
• Michael Ramsey and A. M. Allchin, Evelyn Underhill. Two centenary essays (Oxford 1977).
• Annice Callahan, Evelyn Underhill: Spirituality for daily living (University Press of America 1997).
• Dana Greene, Evelyn Underhill. Artist of the infinite life (University of Notre Dame 1998).

External links

• Quotations related to Evelyn Underhill at Wikiquote
• Works related to Evelyn Underhill at Wikisource
• The Evelyn Underhill Association
• Evelyn Underhill bio and writing at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about Evelyn Underhill at Internet Archive
• Works at Open Library
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at University of St. Andrews, [1]
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at King's College, London [2]
• Works by Evelyn Underhill at Virginia Theological Seminary [3]
• Christianity portal
• Biography portal

[admin]

Part 1 of 3

David Lloyd George
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 2/26/20


The Right Honourable David Lloyd George OM PC (n.b.)
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
In office: 6 December 1916 – 19 October 1922
Monarch: George V
Preceded by: H. H. Asquith
Succeeded by: Bonar Law
Leader of the Liberal Party
In office: 14 October 1926 – 4 November 1931
Preceded by: H. H. Asquith
Succeeded by: Herbert Samuel
Secretary of State for War
In office: 6 July 1916 – 5 December 1916
Prime Minister: H. H. Asquith
Preceded by: The Earl Kitchener
Succeeded by: The Earl of Derby
Minister of Munitions
In office: 25 May 1915 – 9 July 1916
Prime Minister: H. H. Asquith
Preceded by: Office created
Succeeded by: Edwin Montagu
Chancellor of the Exchequer
In office: 12 April 1908 – 25 May 1915
Prime Minister: H. H. Asquith
Preceded by: H. H. Asquith
Succeeded by: Reginald McKenna
President of the Board of Trade
In office: 10 December 1905 – 12 April 1908
Prime Minister: Henry Campbell-Bannerman; H. H. Asquith
Preceded by: The Marquess of Salisbury
Succeeded by: Winston Churchill
Father of the House
In office: 31 May 1929 – 13 February 1945
Preceded by: T. P. O'Connor
Succeeded by: The Earl Winterton
Member of the House of Lord, Lord Temporal
In office: 1 January 1945 – 26 March 1945
Hereditary peerage
Preceded by: Peerage created
Succeeded by: The 2nd Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor
Member of Parliament for Carnarvon Boroughs
In office: 10 April 1890 – 13 February 1945
Preceded by: Edmund Swetenham[1]
Succeeded by: Seaborne Davies
Personal details
Born: 17 January 1863, Manchester, Lancashire, England
Died: 26 March 1945 (aged 82), Tŷ Newydd, Caernarfonshire, Wales
Resting place: Llanystumdwy, Gwynedd, Wales
Nationality: British
Political party: Liberal (1890–19161924–1945); Coalition Liberal (1916–1922); National Liberal (1922–1923)
Spouse(s): Margaret Owen, (m. 1888; died 1941); Frances Stevenson (m. 1943)
Children: 5 (including RichardGwilymMegan)
Occupation: Solicitor politician
n.b. Styled as 'The Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor' from 1945.

David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, OM, PC (17 January 1863 – 26 March 1945) was a British statesman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1916 and 1922. He was the final Liberal to hold the post.

Lloyd George was born in Manchester to Welsh parents. His father—a schoolmaster—died in 1864 and he was raised in Wales by his mother and her shoemaker brother, whose Liberal politics and Baptist faith strongly influenced Lloyd George; the same uncle helped the boy embark on a career as a solicitor after leaving school. Lloyd George became active in local politics, gaining a reputation as an orator and a proponent of a Welsh blend of radical Liberalism which championed nonconformism and the disestablishment of the Anglican church in Wales, equality for labourers and tenant farmers, and reform of landownership. In 1890 he narrowly won a by-election to become the Member of Parliament for Caernarvon Boroughs, in which seat he remained for fifty-five years. Lloyd George served in Henry Campbell-Bannerman's cabinet from 1905. After H. H. Asquith succeeded to the premiership in 1908 Lloyd George replaced him as Chancellor of the Exchequer. To fund extensive welfare reforms he proposed taxes on land ownership and high incomes in the "People's Budget" (1909), which the Conservative-dominated House of Lords rejected. The resulting constitutional crisis was only resolved after two elections in 1910 and the passage of the Parliament Act 1911. His budget was then enacted alongside the National Insurance Act 1911 which helped to establish the modern welfare state. In 1913 he was embroiled in the Marconi scandal, but he remained in office and promoted the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 suspended its implementation.

As wartime Chancellor Lloyd George strengthened the country's finances and forged agreements with trade unions to maintain production. In 1915 Asquith formed a Liberal-led wartime coalition with the Conservatives and Labour. Lloyd George became Minister of Munitions and rapidly expanded production. In 1916 he was appointed Secretary of State for War but was frustrated by his limited power and clashes with the military establishment over strategy. Amid stalemate on the Western Front, confidence in Asquith's leadership waned. He was forced to resign in December 1916; Lloyd George succeeded him as Prime Minister, supported by the Conservatives and some Liberals. He centralised authority through a smaller war cabinet, a new Cabinet Office and his "Garden Suburb" of advisers. To combat food shortages he implemented the convoy system, established rationing, and stimulated farming. After supporting the disastrous French Nivelle Offensive in 1917, he had to reluctantly approve Field Marshal Haig's plans for the Battle of Passchendaele which resulted in huge casualties with little strategic benefit. Against the views of his commanders, he was finally able to see the Allies brought under one command in March 1918. The war effort turned to their favour that August and was won in November. In the aftermath he and the Conservatives maintained their coalition with popular support following the December 1918 "Coupon" election. His government had extended the franchise to all men and some women earlier in the year.

Lloyd George was a major player in Paris Peace Conference of 1919 but the situation in Ireland worsened that year, erupting into the Irish War of Independence which lasted until Lloyd George negotiated independence for the Irish Free State in 1921. At home he initiated reforms to education and housing but trade union militancy entered record levels, the economy became depressed in 1920 and unemployment rose; spending cuts followed (1921–22) and he was embroiled in a scandal over the sale of honours and the Chanak Crisis in 1922. Bonar Law won backbench support for the Conservatives to contend the next election alone. Lloyd George resigned; with his party split between his and Asquith's supporters, his faction won just over 50 seats in the 1922 election, Asquith's just over 60. The next year the pair reunited to oppose Stanley Baldwin's tariff proposal which he put to the country. The Liberals made gains in 1923 but remained third after the Conservatives and Labour, propping up a Labour minority government; they never regained their status as second party and, when the Labour government fell, went down to just over 40 seats in 1924 under Asquith. Lloyd George led the Liberals from 1926 to 1931, putting forward innovative proposals for public works; this failed to convert into seats in 1929 and from 1931 he was a marginalised and mistrusted figure heading a small rump of breakaway Liberals opposed to the National Government. He declined an offer to serve in Winston Churchill's War Cabinet in 1940 and was raised to the peerage in 1945, shortly before his death.

Upbringing and early life

Lloyd George was born on 17 January 1863 in Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester, to Welsh parents, and was brought up as a Welsh-speaker. He is so far the only British Prime Minister to have been Welsh[a] and to have spoken English as a second language.[2]

His father, William George, had been a teacher in both London and Liverpool. He also taught in the Hope Street Sunday Schools, which were administered by the Unitarians, where he met Unitarian minister James Martineau.[3]:1 In March of the same year, on account of his failing health, William George returned with his family to his native Pembrokeshire. He took up farming but died in June 1864 of pneumonia, aged 44. His widow, Elizabeth George (1828–96), sold the farm and moved with her children to her native Llanystumdwy in Caernarfonshire, where she lived in a cottage known as Highgate with her brother Richard Lloyd (1834–1917), who was a shoemaker, a minister (in the Scottish Baptists and then the Church of Christ),[4] and a strong Liberal. Lloyd George was educated at the local Anglican school Llanystumdwy National School and later under tutors. Lloyd George's uncle was a towering influence on him, encouraging him to take up a career in law and enter politics; his uncle remained influential up until his death at age 83 in February 1917, by which time his nephew had become Prime Minister. He added his uncle's surname to become "Lloyd George". His surname is usually given as "Lloyd George" and sometimes as "George". The influence of his childhood showed through in his entire career, as he attempted to aid the common man at the expense of what he liked to call "the Dukes" (that is, the aristocracy); however, biographer John Grigg argued that Lloyd George's childhood was nowhere near as poverty-stricken as he liked to suggest.[5]

Brought up a devout evangelical, as a young man he suddenly lost his religious faith. Biographer Don Cregier says he became "a Deist and perhaps an agnostic, though he remained a chapel-goer and connoisseur of good preaching all his life". He kept quiet about this, and was, according to Frank Owen, for 25 years "one of the foremost fighting leaders of a fanatical Welsh Nonconformity".[6][3]:6[7]

It was also during this period of his life that Lloyd George first became interested in the issue of land ownership. As a young man he read books by Thomas Spence, John Stuart Mill and Henry George, as well as pamphlets written by George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb of the Fabian Society on the issue of land ownership.[8] By the age of twenty-one, he had already read and taken notes on Henry George's Progress and Poverty.[9] This strongly influenced Lloyd George's politics later in life; the People's Budget drew heavily on Georgist tax reform ideas.


Lloyd George circa 1890

Articled to a firm of solicitors in Porthmadog, Lloyd George was admitted in 1884 after taking Honours in his final law examination and set up his own practice in the back parlour of his uncle's house in 1885. The practice flourished, and he established branch offices in surrounding towns, taking his brother William into partnership in 1887. Although many Prime Ministers have been barristers, Lloyd George is to date the only solicitor to have held that office.[10]

By then he was politically active, having campaigned for the Liberal Party in the 1885 election, attracted by Joseph Chamberlain's "unauthorised programme" of reforms.[11]:43 The election resulted firstly in a stalemate with neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives having a majority, the balance of power being held by the Irish Parliamentary Party. William Gladstone's proposal to bring about Irish Home Rule split the party, with Chamberlain eventually leading the breakaway Liberal Unionists. Uncertain of which wing to follow, Lloyd George moved a resolution in support of Chamberlain at a local Liberal Club and travelled to Birmingham to attend the first meeting of Chamberlain's National Radical Union, but he had his dates wrong and arrived a week too early.[11]:53 In 1907 he told Herbert Lewis that he thought Chamberlain's plan for a federal solution correct in 1886 and still thought so, that he preferred the unauthorised programme to the Whig-like platform of the official Liberal Party, and that "If Henry Richmond, Osborne Morgan and the Welsh members had stood by Chamberlain on an agreement as regards the disestablishment, they would have carried Wales with them".[11]:53

He married Margaret Owen, the daughter of a well-to-do local farming family, on 24 January 1888.[3]:15-16 Also in that year, he and other young Welsh Liberals founded a monthly paper Udgorn Rhyddid (Bugle of Freedom). They also won the Llanfrothen burial case, which established the right of Nonconformists to be buried according to their own denominational rites in parish burial grounds, a right given by the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880 but which had up to then been ignored by the Anglican clergy. On Lloyd George's advice, a Baptist burial party broke open a gate to a cemetery which had been locked against them by the vicar. The vicar sued them for trespass and the local judge misrecorded the jury's verdict and found in his favour, awakening suspicions of bias by the local Tory landowning class. Lloyd George's clients won on appeal to the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench in London, where Lord Chief Justice Coleridge found in their favour.[12][3]:14-15 This case, which was hailed as a great victory throughout Wales, led to his adoption as the Liberal candidate for Carnarvon Boroughs on 27 December 1888.[13]:46

In 1889 he became an Alderman on Carnarvonshire County Council which had been created by the Local Government Act 1888, and was to remain so for the rest of his life.[3]:15[11]:65-66 For the same county Lloyd George would also become a JP (1910)[14] and chairman of Quarter Sessions (1929–38),[15] and Deputy Lieutenant in 1921.[14]

At that time he appeared to be trying to create a separate Welsh national party modelled on Parnell's Irish Parliamentary Party and worked towards a union of the North and South Wales Liberal Federations.

Member of Parliament

Lloyd George was returned as Liberal MP for Carnarvon Boroughs – by a margin of 18 votes – in the by-election on 10 April 1890, following the death of the Conservative member Edmund Swetenham.[16] He sat with an informal grouping of Welsh Liberal members who had a programme of disestablishing and disendowing the Church of England in Wales, temperance reform, and Welsh home rule. He would remain an MP for the same constituency until 1945, 55 years later.[13]:50

As backbench members of the House of Commons were not paid at that time, he supported himself and his growing family by continuing to practise as a solicitor, opening an office in London under the name of 'Lloyd George and Co.' and continuing in partnership with William George in Criccieth. In 1897 he merged his growing London practice with that of Arthur Rhys Roberts (who was to become Official Solicitor) under the name of 'Lloyd George, Roberts and Co.'.[17]

He served as the legal adviser of Theodor Herzl in his negotiations with the British government regarding the Uganda Scheme, proposed as an alternative homeland for the Jews due to Turkish refusal to grant a charter for Jewish settlement in Palestine.[18]

Issues

He was soon speaking on Liberal issues (particularly temperance – the "local option" – and national as opposed to denominational education) throughout England as well as Wales. During the next decade Lloyd George campaigned in Parliament largely on Welsh issues and in particular for disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England. He wrote extensively for Liberal papers such as the Manchester Guardian. When Gladstone retired in 1894 after the defeat of the second Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Liberal members chose him to serve on a deputation to William Harcourt to press for specific assurances on Welsh issues; when those were not provided, they resolved to take independent action if the government did not bring a bill for disestablishment. When that was not forthcoming, he and three other Welsh Liberals (D. A. Thomas, Herbert Lewis and Frank Edwards) refused the whip on 14 April 1894, but accepted Lord Rosebery's assurance and rejoined the official Liberals on 29 May. Thereafter he devoted much time to setting up branches of Cymru Fydd (Young Wales), which, he said, would in time become a force like the Irish National Party. He abandoned this idea after being criticised in Welsh newspapers for bringing about the defeat of the Liberal Party in the 1895 election and at a meeting in Newport on 16 January 1896 of the South Wales Liberal Federation, led by D. A. Thomas, he was shouted down.[19]

Lloyd George also supported the idea of Pan-Celtic unity and gave a speech at the 1904 Pan-Celtic Congress in Caernarfon.[20]

Opposes Boer War

Lloyd George had been impressed by his journey to Canada in 1899. Although sometimes wrongly supposed – both at the time and subsequently – to be a Little Englander, he was not an opponent of the British Empire per se, but in a speech at Birkenhead (21 November 1901) he stressed that it needed to be based on freedom, including for India, not "racial arrogance".[21]:61 Consequently, he gained national fame by displaying vehement opposition to the Second Boer War.[22]

Following Rosebery's lead he based his attack firstly on what were supposed to be Britain's war aims – remedying the grievances of the Uitlanders and in particular the claim that they were wrongly denied the right to vote, saying "I do not believe the war has any connection with the franchise. It is a question of 45% dividends" and that England (which did not then have universal male suffrage) was more in need of franchise reform than the Boer republics. A second attack came on the cost of the war, which, he argued, prevented overdue social reform in England, such as old age pensions and workmen's cottages. As the fighting continued his attacks moved to its conduct by the generals, who, he said (basing his words on reports by William Burdett-Coutts in The Times), were not providing for the sick or wounded soldiers and were starving Boer women and children in concentration camps. But his major thrusts were reserved for the Chamberlains, accusing them of war profiteering through the family company Kynoch Ltd, of which Chamberlain's brother was Chairman. The firm had won tenders to the War Office though its prices were higher than some of its competitors. After speaking at a meeting in Birmingham Lloyd George had to be smuggled out disguised as a policeman, as his life was in danger from the mob. At this time the Liberal Party was badly split as H. H. Asquith, R. B. Haldane and others were supporters of the war and formed the Liberal Imperial League.[23]


David Lloyd George in 1902

Opposes Education Act of 1902

Lloyd George was the main spokesman for the Nonconformists, and they made a major issue out of the government's Education Act 1902. It provided funding for Church of England schools, paid out of local taxation. The bill passed but opposition to it helped reunite the Liberals. His successful amendment that county councils need only fund those schools where the buildings were in good repair served to make the Act a dead letter in Wales, where the counties were able to show that most Church of England schools were in poor repair. Having already gained national recognition for his anti-Boer War campaigns, his leadership of the attacks on the Education Act gave him a strong parliamentary reputation and marked him as a likely future cabinet member.[24]

The Act served to reunify the Liberals after their divisions over the Boer War, and to increase Nonconformist influence in the party, which then included educational reform as policy in the 1906 election, which resulted in a Liberal landslide.[25]

President of the Board of Trade (1905–1908)


David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill in 1907

Further information: Education Act 1902 § The failed Education Bill of 1906
In 1905 Lloyd George entered the new Liberal Cabinet of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as President of the Board of Trade.[26]:63

The first priority on taking office was repeal of the 1902 Education Act. Lloyd George took the lead along with Augustine Birrell, President of the Board of Education. Lloyd George appears to have been the dominant figure on the committee drawing up the bill in its later stages, and insisted that the bill create a separate education committee for Wales. Birrell complained privately that the bill, introduced in the Commons on 9 April 1906, owed more to Lloyd George and that he himself had had little say in its contents.[27]:74-77 The bill passed the House of Commons greatly amended, but was completely mangled by the House of Lords.[25] For the rest of the year, Lloyd George made numerous public speeches attacking the House of Lords for mutilating the bill with wrecking amendments, in defiance of the Liberals' electoral mandate to reform the 1902 Act. Lloyd George was rebuked by King Edward VII for these speeches: the Prime Minister defended him to the Kings's secretary Francis Knollys, stating that his behaviour in Parliament was more constructive but that in speeches to the public "the combative spirit seems to get the better of him".[27]:74-77 No compromise was possible and the bill was abandoned, allowing the 1902 Act to continue in effect.[25] As a result of Lloyd George's lobbying, a separate department for Wales[ b] was created within the Board of Education.[27]:74-77

Nonconformists were bitterly upset by the failure of the Liberal Party to carry through on its most important promise to them, and over time their support for the Liberal Party slowly fell away.[28]

At the Board of Trade Lloyd George introduced legislation on many topics, from merchant shipping and the Port of London to companies and railway regulation. His main achievement was in stopping a proposed national strike of the railway unions by brokering an agreement between the unions and the railway companies. While almost all the companies refused to recognise the unions, Lloyd George persuaded the companies to recognise elected representatives of the workers who sat with the company representatives on conciliation boards—one for each company. If those boards failed to agree then an arbitrator would be called upon.[27]:69-73

Chancellor of the Exchequer (1908–1915)

See also: David Lloyd George and the suffrage movement, 1907–1912

On Campbell-Bannerman's death he succeeded Asquith, who had become Prime Minister, as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1908 to 1915.[27]:81[29]:189-190 While he continued some work from the Board of Trade—for example, legislation to establish the Port of London Authority and to pursue traditional Liberal programmes such as licensing law reforms—his first major trial in this role was over the 1908–1909 Naval Estimates. The Liberal manifesto at the 1906 general election included a commitment to reduce military expenditure. Lloyd George strongly supported this, writing to Reginald McKenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, "the emphatic pledges given by all of us at the last general election to reduce the gigantic expenditure on armaments built up by the recklessness of our predecessors." He then proposed the programme be reduced from six to four dreadnoughts. This was adopted by the government, but there was a public storm when the Conservatives, with covert support from the First Sea Lord, Admiral Jackie Fisher, campaigned for more with the slogan "We want eight and we won't wait". This resulted in Lloyd George's defeat in Cabinet and the adoption of estimates including provision for eight dreadnoughts.[30] During this period he was also a target of protest by the women's suffrage movement, as he professed support personally but did not move for changes within the Parliament process.[31]


Portrait of Chancellor Lloyd George by Christopher Williams (1911)

People's Budget, 1909

Further information: People's Budget

In 1909 Lloyd George introduced his People's Budget, imposing a 20% tax on the unearned increase in value of land, payable at death of the owner or sale of the land, and ½ d. on undeveloped land and minerals, increased death duties, a rise in income tax, and the introduction of Supertax on income over £3,000.[32] There were taxes also on luxuries, alcohol, and tobacco, so that money could be made available for the new welfare programmes as well as new battleships. The nation's landowners (well represented in the House of Lords) were intensely angry at the new taxes, mostly at the proposed very high tax on land values, but also because the instrumental redistribution of wealth could be used to detract from an argument for protective tariffs.[33][page needed]

The immediate consequences included the end of the Liberal League, and Rosebery breaking friendship with the Liberal Party, which in itself was for Lloyd George a triumph. He had won the case of social reform without losing the debate on Free Trade.[34]:166 Arthur Balfour denounced the budget as "vindictive, inequitable, based on no principles, and injurious to the productive capacity of the country."[34]:167 Roy Jenkins described it as the most reverberating since Gladstone's in 1860.[34]:172

In the House of Commons Lloyd George gave a brilliant account of the budget, which was attacked by the Conservatives. On the stump, notably at his Limehouse speech in 1909, he denounced the Conservatives and the wealthy classes with all his very considerable oratorical power. The budget was defeated by the Conservative majority in the House of Lords. The elections of 1910 narrowly upheld the Liberal government. The 1909 budget was passed on 28 April 1910 by the Lords, and received the Royal Assent on the 29th.[35][36] Subsequently, the Parliament Act 1911 curtailed the veto power of the House of Lords.

Although old-age pensions had already been introduced by Asquith as Chancellor, Lloyd George was largely responsible for the introduction of state financial support for the sick and infirm (known colloquially as "going on the Lloyd George" for decades afterwards)—legislation referred to as the Liberal Reforms. Lloyd George also succeeded in putting through Parliament his National Insurance Act 1911, making provision for sickness and invalidism, and a system of unemployment insurance. He was helped in his endeavours by forty or so backbenchers who regularly pushed for new social measures, often voted with Labour MPs.[37][page needed] These social reforms in Britain were the beginnings of a welfare state and fulfilled the aim of dampening down the demands of the growing working class for rather more radical solutions to their impoverishment.[citation needed]

Under his leadership after 1909 the Liberals extended minimum wages to farm workers.[38]


David Lloyd George circa 1911

Mansion House Speech, 1911

Lloyd George was considered an opponent of war until the Agadir Crisis of 1911, during which he gave a stirring and patriotic speech at Mansion House on 21 July 1911. Grey was aghast and felt that the Chancellor was more qualified to be Foreign Secretary than he was; German opinion recognised that Britain would resist further German aggression.[39] Haldane and Lloyd George were among the minority in the Cabinet who were pro-German, on grounds of a shared religion, philosophy, artistic culture and scientific enquiry. Germany blamed Lloyd George for doing "untold harm both with regard to German public opinion and the negotiations...namely, to the despatch of the German warship to Agadir", and citing Count Metternich "...Mr Lloyd George's speech came upon us like a thunderbolt"[40]

Marconi scandal 1913

In 1913 Lloyd George, along with Rufus Isaacs, the Attorney General, was involved in the Marconi scandal. Accused of speculating in Marconi shares on the inside information that they were about to be awarded a key government contract (which would have caused them to increase in value), he told the House of Commons that he had not speculated in the shares of "that company". He had in fact bought shares in the American Marconi Company.[41]

Welsh Church Act 1914

The Church of England no longer had majority adherence in most parts of Wales in preference to Wales-led Protestantism, in particular Methodism. Lloyd George had long called for disestablishment and was instrumental in introducing the Welsh Church Act 1914 which disestablished the Anglican Church in Wales (though, upon the outbreak of war, the actual coming into force of the Act was postponed by the Suspensory Act 1914 until 1920), removing the opportunity of the six Welsh Bishops in the new Church in Wales to sit in the House of Lords and removing (disendowing) certain pre-1662 property rights.[42][43]

First World War

Lloyd George was as surprised as almost everyone else by the outbreak of the First World War. On 23 July 1914, almost a month after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and on the eve of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, he made a speech advocating "economy" in the House of Commons, saying that Britain's relations with Germany were better than for many years.[44]:325-326 On 27 July he told C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian that Britain would keep out of the impending war.[45] With the Cabinet divided, and most ministers reluctant for Britain to get involved, he struck Asquith as "statesmanlike" at the Cabinet meeting on 1 August, favouring keeping Britain's options open. The next day he seemed likely to resign if Britain intervened, but he held back at Cabinet on Monday 3 August, moved by news that Belgium would resist Germany's demand for passage for her army across her soil. He was seen as a key figure whose stance helped to persuade almost the entire Cabinet to support British intervention.[46][44]:327-329 He was able to give the more pacifist members of the cabinet and the Liberal Party a principle - the rights of small nations - which meant they could support the war and maintain united political and popular support.[47]

Lloyd George remained in office as Chancellor of the Exchequer for the first year of the Great War. The budget of 17 November 1914 had to allow for lower taxation receipts because of the reduction in world trade. The Crimean and Boer Wars had largely been paid for out of taxation; but Lloyd George raised debt financing of £321 million. Large (but deferred) increases in Supertax and income tax rates were accompanied by increases in excise duties, and the budget produced a tax increase of £63 million in a full year.[34]:174-175 His last budget, on 4 May 1915, showed a growing concern for the effects of alcohol on the war effort, with large increases in duties, and a scheme of state control of alcohol sales in specified areas. The excise proposals were opposed by the Irish Nationalists and the Conservatives, and were abandoned.[34]:175-176

Minister of Munitions


David Lloyd George in 1915

See also: Minister of Munitions and Shell Crisis of 1915

Lloyd George gained a heroic reputation with his energetic work as Minister of Munitions, 1915–16, setting the stage for his move up to the height of power. After a long struggle with the War Office, he wrested responsibility for arms production away from the generals, making it a purely industrial department, with considerable expert assistance from Walter Runciman.[48] The two men gained the respect of Liberal cabinet colleagues for improving administrative capabilities, and increasing outputs.[49]

When the Shell Crisis of 1915 dismayed public opinion with the news that the Army was running short of artillery shells, demands rose for a strong leader to take charge of munitions. In the first coalition ministry, formed in May 1915, Lloyd George was made Minister of Munitions, heading a new department.[50] In this position he won great acclaim, which formed the basis for his political ascent. All historians agree that he boosted national morale and focussed attention on the urgent need for greater output, but many also say the increase in munitions output in 1915–16 was due largely to reforms already underway, though not yet effective, before he had even arrived. The Ministry broke through the cumbersome bureaucracy of the War Office, resolved labour problems, rationalised the supply system and dramatically increased production. Within a year it became the largest buyer, seller, and employer in Britain.[48]


Lloyd George, Edward Grey, Herbert Kitchener, Nikola Pašić, Antonio Salandra, Alexander Izvolsky, Aristide Briand, Joseph Joffre at a conference of the Allied Powers on 27–28 March 1916 in Paris

Lloyd George was not at all satisfied with the progress of the war. He wanted to "knock away the props", by attacking Germany's allies – from early in 1915 he argued for the sending of British troops to the Balkans to assist Serbia and bring Greece and other Balkan countries onto the side of the Allies (this was eventually done – the Salonika expedition – although not on the scale that Lloyd George had wanted, and mountain ranges made his suggestions of grand Balkan offensives impractical); in 1916 he wanted to send machine guns to Romania (insufficient amounts were available for this to be feasible). These suggestions began a period of poor relations with the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Robertson, who was "brusque to the point of rudeness" and "barely concealed his contempt for Lloyd George's military opinions", to which he was in the habit of retorting "I've 'eard different".[51]

Lloyd George persuaded Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War, to raise a Welsh Division, and, despite Kitchener's threat of resignation, to recognise nonconformist chaplains in the Army.[52]

Late in 1915 Lloyd George became a strong supporter of general conscription, an issue that divided Liberals, and helped the passage of several conscription acts from January 1916 onwards. In spring 1916 Alfred Milner hoped Lloyd George could be persuaded to bring down the coalition government by resigning, but this did not happen.[53]

Secretary of State for War


Lloyd George in 1916

In June 1916 Lloyd George succeeded Lord Kitchener (who died when his ship was sunk) as Secretary of State for War, although he had little control over strategy, as General Robertson had been given direct right of access to the Cabinet so as to bypass Kitchener. He did succeed in securing the appointment of Sir Eric Geddes to take charge of military railways behind British lines in France, with the honorary rank of major-general.[54] Lloyd George told a journalist, Roy W. Howard, in late September that "the fight must be to a finish – to a knockout", a rejection of President Woodrow Wilson's offer to mediate.[55]

Lloyd George was increasingly frustrated at the limited gains of the Somme Offensive, criticising General Haig to Ferdinand Foch on a visit to the Western Front in September (British casualty ratios were worse than those of the French, who were more experienced and had more artillery), proposing sending Robertson on a mission to Russia (he refused to go), and demanding that more troops be sent to Salonika to help Romania. Robertson eventually threatened to resign.[56]

Much of the press still argued that the professional leadership of Haig and Robertson was preferable to civilian interference which had led to disasters like Gallipoli and Kut. Lord Northcliffe, owner of The Times stormed into Lloyd George's office and, finding him unavailable, told his secretary "You can tell him that I hear he has been interfering with Strategy, and that if he goes on I will break him", and the same day (11 October) Lloyd George also received a warning letter from H. A. Gwynne, editor of the Morning Post. He was obliged to give his "word of honour" to Asquith that he had complete confidence in Haig and Robertson and thought them irreplaceable, but he wrote to Robertson wanting to know how their differences had been leaked to the press (affecting to believe that Robertson had not personally "authorised such a breach of confidence & discipline"). He asserted his right to express his opinions about strategy in November, by which time ministers had taken to holding meetings to which Robertson was not invited.[57]

The weakness of Asquith as a planner and organiser was increasingly apparent to senior officials. After Asquith had refused, then agreed, and then refused again to agree to Lloyd George's demand that he should be allowed to chair a small committee to manage the war, he resigned in December 1916. Grey was among leading Asquithians who had identified Lloyd George's intentions the previous month.[58] Lloyd George became Prime Minister, with the nation demanding he take vigorous charge of the war. A Punch cartoon of the time showed him as "The New Conductor" conducting the orchestra in the "Opening of the 1917 Overture".[59]

Although during the political crisis Robertson had advised Lloyd George to "stick to it" and form a small War Council, Lloyd George had planned if necessary to appeal to the country, his Military Secretary Colonel Arthur Lee having prepared a memo blaming Robertson and the General Staff for the loss of Serbia and Romania. Lloyd George was restricted by his promise to the Unionists to keep Haig as Commander-in-Chief and the press support for the generals, although Milner and Curzon were also sympathetic to campaigns to increase British power in the Middle East.[60] After Germany's offer (12 December 1916) of a negotiated peace Lloyd George rebuffed President Wilson's request for the belligerents to state their war aims by demanding terms tantamount to German defeat.[61]

Prime Minister (1916–1922)

Further information: Lloyd George ministry

War leader (1916–1918)

Forming a government

The fall of Asquith as Prime Minister split the Liberal Party into two factions: those who supported him and those who supported the coalition government. In his War Memoirs, Lloyd George compared himself with Asquith:[62]

There are certain indispensable qualities essential to the Chief Minister of the Crown in a great war. . . . Such a minister must have courage, composure, and judgment. All this Mr. Asquith possessed in a superlative degree. . . . But a war minister must also have vision, imagination and initiative—he must show untiring assiduity, must exercise constant oversight and supervision of every sphere of war activity, must possess driving force to energize this activity, must be in continuous consultation with experts, official and unofficial, as to the best means of utilising the resources of the country in conjunction with the Allies for the achievement of victory. If to this can be added a flair for conducting a great fight, then you have an ideal War Minister.

After December 1916 Lloyd George relied on the support of Conservatives and of the press baron Lord Northcliffe (who owned both The Times and the Daily Mail). Besides the Prime Minister, the five-member War Cabinet contained three Conservatives (Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords Lord Curzon, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons Bonar Law, and Minister without Portfolio Lord Milner) and Arthur Henderson, unofficially representing Labour. Edward Carson was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, as had been widely touted during the intrigues of the previous month, but excluded from the War Cabinet. Amongst the few Liberal frontbenchers to support Lloyd George were Christopher Addison (who had played an important role in drumming up some backbench Liberal support for Lloyd George), H. A. L. Fisher, Lord Rhondda and Sir Albert Stanley. Edwin Montagu and Churchill joined the government in the summer of 1917.[63]

Lloyd George's Secretariat, popularly known as Downing Street's "Garden Suburb", assisted him in discharging his responsibilities within the constraints of the war cabinet system. Its function was to maintain contact with the numerous departments of government, to collect information, and to report on matters of special concern. Its leading members were George Adams and Philip Kerr, and the other secretaries included David Davies, Joseph Davies, Waldorf Astor and, later, Cecil Harmsworth.[64]

Lloyd George wanted to make the destruction of Ottoman Empire a major British war aim, and two days after taking office told Robertson that he wanted a major victory, preferably the capture of Jerusalem, to impress British public opinion.[65]

At the Rome Conference (5–6 January 1917) Lloyd George was discreetly quiet about plans to take Jerusalem, an object which advanced British interests rather than doing much to win the war. Lloyd George proposed sending heavy guns to Italy with a view to defeating Austria-Hungary, possibly to be balanced by a transfer of Italian troops to Salonika, but was unable to obtain the support of the French or Italians, and Robertson talked of resigning.[66]

[admin]

Part 2 of 3

Nivelle Affair

Lloyd George engaged almost constantly in intrigues calculated to reduce the power of the generals, including trying to subordinate British forces in France to the French General Nivelle. He backed Nivelle because he thought he had 'proved himself to be a Man' by his successful counterattacks at Verdun, and because of his promises that he could break the German lines in 48 hours. Nivelle increasingly complained of Haig's dragging his feet rather than co-operating with their plans for the offensive.[67]

The plan was to put British forces under Nivelle's direct command for the great 1917 offensive. The British would attack first, thereby tying down the German reserves. Then the French would strike and score an overwhelming victory in two days. It was announced at a War Cabinet meeting on 24 February, to which neither Robertson nor Lord Derby (Secretary of State for War) had been invited. Ministers felt that the French generals and staff had shown themselves more skillful than the British in 1916, whilst politically Britain had to give wholehearted support to what would probably be the last major French effort of the war. The Nivelle proposal was then given to Robertson and Haig without warning on 26–27 February at the Calais Conference (minutes from the War Cabinet meeting were not sent to the King until 28 February, so that he did not have a prior chance to object). Robertson in particular protested vehemently. Finally a compromise was reached whereby Haig would be under Nivelle's orders but would retain operational control of British forces and keep a right of appeal to London "if he saw good reason". After further argument the status quo, that Haig was an ally of the French but was expected to defer to their wishes, was largely restored in mid-March.[68][69][70][71]

In the event the British attack at the Battle of Arras (9–14 April 1917) was partly successful but with much higher casualties than the Germans suffered. There had been many delays and the Germans, suspecting an attack, had shortened their lines to the strong Hindenburg Line. The French attack on the Aisne River in mid-April gained some tactically important high ground but failed to achieve the promised decisive breakthrough, pushing the French Army to the point of mutiny. While Haig gained prestige, Lloyd George lost credibility, and the affair further poisoned relations between himself and the "Brasshats".[72]

The U-Boat War

Shipping

In early 1917 the Germans had resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in a bid to achieve victory on the Western Approaches. Lloyd George set up a Ministry of Shipping under Sir Joseph Maclay, a Glasgow shipowner who was not, until after he left office, a member of either House of Parliament, and housed in a wooden building in a specially drained lake in St James's Park, within a few minutes' walk from the Admiralty. The Junior Minister and House of Commons spokesman was Leo Chiozza Money, with whom Maclay did not get on, but on whose appointment Lloyd George insisted, feeling that their qualities would complement one another. The Civil Service staff was headed by the highly able John Anderson (then only thirty-four years old) and included Arthur Salter. A number of shipping magnates were persuaded, like Maclay himself, to work unpaid for the ministry (as had a number of industrialists for the Ministry of Munitions), who were also able to obtain ideas privately from junior naval officers who were reluctant to argue with their superiors in meetings. The ministers heading the Board of Trade, for Munitions (Addison) and for Agriculture and Food (Lord Rhondda), were also expected to co-operate with Maclay.[21]:45–47, 49

In accordance with a pledge Lloyd George had given in December 1916 nearly 90% of Britain's merchant shipping tonnage was soon brought under state control (previously less than half had been controlled by the Admiralty), whilst remaining privately owned (similar measures were in force at the time for the railways). Merchant shipping was concentrated, largely on Chiozza Money's initiative, on the transatlantic route where it could more easily be protected, instead of being spread out all over the globe (this relied on imports coming first into North America). Maclay began the process of increasing ship construction, although he was hampered by shortages of steel and labour, and ships under construction in the United States were confiscated by the Americans when she entered the war. In May 1917 Eric Geddes, based at the Admiralty, was put in charge of shipbuilding, and in July he became First Lord of the Admiralty.[21]:47–49 Later the German U-Boats were defeated in 1918.

Convoys

Main article: Convoys in World War I

Lloyd George had raised the matter of convoys at the War Committee in November 1916, only to be told by the admirals present, including Jellicoe, that convoys presented too large a target, and that merchant ship masters lacked the discipline to keep station in a convoy.[21]:49-50

In February 1917 Maurice Hankey, the secretary of the War Cabinet, wrote a memorandum for Lloyd George calling for the introduction of "scientifically organised convoys", almost certainly after being persuaded by Commander Reginald Henderson and the Shipping Ministry officials with whom he was in contact. After a breakfast meeting (13 February 1917) with Lloyd George, Sir Edward Carson (First Lord of the Admiralty) and Admirals Jellicoe and Duff agreed to "conduct experiments"; however, convoys were not in general use until August, by which time the rate of shipping losses was already in decline after peaking in April.[21]:51, 53

Lloyd George later claimed in his War Memoirs that the delay in introducing convoys was because the Admiralty mishandled an experimental convoy between Britain and Norway, and because Jellicoe obtained, behind Maclay's back, an unrepresentative sample of merchant skippers claiming that they lacked the skill to "keep station" in convoy. In fact Hankey's diary shows that Lloyd George's interest in the matter was intermittent, whilst Frances Stevenson's diaries contain no mention of the topic. He may well have been reluctant, especially at a time when his relations with the generals were so poor, for a showdown with Carson, a weak administrator who was as much the mouthpiece of the admirals as Derby was of the generals, but who had played a key role in the fall of Asquith and who led a significant bloc of Conservative and Irish Unionist MPs.[21]:50, 52

The new Commander of the Grand Fleet Admiral Beatty, whom Lloyd George visited at Invergordon on 15 April, was a supporter of convoys, as was the American Admiral Sims (the USA had just entered the war). The War Cabinet on 25 April authorised Lloyd George to look into the anti-submarine campaign, and on 30 April he visited the Admiralty. Duff had already recommended to Jellicoe that the Admiralty adopt convoys after a recent successful convoy from Gibraltar.[21]:52-53

Most of the organisations Lloyd George created during the First World War were replicated with the outbreak of the Second World War. As Lord Beaverbrook remarked, "There were no signposts to guide Lloyd George." The latter's personal efforts to promote convoys were less consistent than he (and Churchill in The World Crisis and Beaverbrook in Men and Power) later claimed; the idea that he, after a hard struggle, sat in the First Lord's chair (on his 30 April visit to the Admiralty) and imposed convoys on a hostile Board is a myth; however, in Grigg's view the credit goes largely to men and institutions which he set in place, and with a freer hand, and making fewer mistakes, than in his dealings with the generals, he and his appointees took decisions which can reasonably be said to have saved the country. "It was a close-run thing … failure would have been catastrophic."[21]:45, 49, 52-52

Russian Revolution

Lloyd George welcomed the Fall of the Tsar, both in a private letter to his brother and in a message to the new Russian Prime Minister Prince Lvov, not least as the war could now be portrayed as a clash between liberal governments and the autocratic Central Powers. Like many observers he had been taken by surprise by the exact timing of the revolution (it had not been predicted by Lord Milner or General Wilson on their visit to Russia a few weeks earlier) and hoped – albeit with some concerns – that Russia's war effort would be invigorated like that of France in the early 1790s.[21]:58-59

Lloyd George gave a cautious welcome to the suggestion (19 March on the western calendar) by the Russian Foreign Minister Pavel Milyukov that the toppled Tsar and his family be given sanctuary in Britain (although Lloyd George would have preferred that they go to a neutral country). From the very start the King's adviser Stamfordham raised objections, and in April the British government withdrew its consent under Royal pressure. Eventually the Russian Royal Family were moved to the Urals where they were executed in 1918. Lloyd George was often blamed for the refusal of asylum, and in his War Memoirs he did not mention King George V's role in the matter, which was not explicitly confirmed until Kenneth Rose's biography of the King was published in 1983.[21]:60-61

Imperial War Cabinet


David Lloyd George circa 1918

An Imperial War Cabinet, including representatives from Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India, met in March–May 1917 (a crisis period of the war) and twice in 1918. The idea was not entirely without precedent as there had been Imperial Conferences in 1902, 1907 and 1911, whilst the Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes had been invited to attend the Cabinet and War Committee on his visit to the UK in the spring of 1916. The South African Jan Smuts was appointed to the British War Cabinet in the early summer of 1917.[21]:61-64

Passchendaele

Lloyd George set up a War Policy Committee (himself, Curzon, Milner, Law and Smuts, with Maurice Hankey as secretary) to discuss strategy, which held 16 meetings over the next six weeks. At the very first meeting (11 June) Lloyd George proposed helping the Italians to capture Trieste,[73] explicitly telling the War Policy Committee (21 June 1917) that he wanted Italian soldiers to be killed rather than British.[74]

Haig believed that a Flanders Offensive had good chance of clearing the Belgian coast, from which German submarines and destroyers were operating (a popular goal with politicians), and that victory at Ypres "might quite possibly lead to (German) collapse". Robertson was less optimistic, but preferred Britain to keep her focus on defeating Germany on the Western Front, and had told Haig that the politicians would not "dare" overrule both soldiers if they gave the same advice. Haig promised he had no "intention of entering into a tremendous offensive involving heavy losses" (20 June) whilst Robertson wanted to avoid "disproportionate loss" (23 June).[75]

The Flanders Offensive was reluctantly sanctioned by the War Policy Committee on 18 July and the War Cabinet two days later, on condition it did not degenerate into a long drawn-out fight like the Somme. The War Cabinet promised to monitor progress and casualties and, if necessary call a halt, although in the event they made little effort to monitor progress until September. Frustrated at his inability to get his way, Lloyd George talked of resigning and taking his case to the public.[76]

The Battle of Passchendaele began on 31 July, but soon became bogged down in unseasonably early wet weather, which turned much of the battlefield into barely passable swamp in which men and animals sometimes drowned, whilst the mud and rain severely reduced the accuracy and effectiveness of artillery, the dominant weapon of the time. Lloyd George tried to enlist the King for diverting efforts against Austria-Hungary, telling Stamfordham (14 August) that the King and Prime Minister were "joint trustees of the nation" who had to avoid waste of manpower. A new Italian offensive began (18 August), but Robertson advised that it was "false strategy" to call off Passchendaele to send reinforcements to Italy, and despite being summoned to George Riddell's home in Sussex, where he was served apple pudding (his favourite dish), agreed only reluctantly. The Anglo-French leadership agreed in early September to send 100 heavy guns to Italy (50 of them French) rather than the 300 which Lloyd George wanted – Lloyd George talked of ordering a halt to Passchendaele, but in Hankey's words "funked it" (4 September). Had he not done so his government might have fallen, for as soon as the guns reached Italy Cadorna called off his offensive (21 September).[77]

At a meeting at Boulogne (25 September) Lloyd George broached with Painlevé the setting up of an Allied Supreme War Council then making Foch generalissimo.[78] Bonar Law had written to Lloyd George that ministers must soon decide whether or not the offensive was to continue. Lloyd George and Robertson met Haig in France (26 September) to discuss the recent German peace feelers (which in the end were publicly repudiated by Chancellor Michaelis)[79] and the progress of the offensive. Haig preferred to continue, encouraged by Plumer's recent successful attacks in dry weather at Menin Road (20 September) and Polygon Wood (26 September), and stating that the Germans were "very worn out". In October the wet weather returned for the final attack towards Passchendaele.[80] At the final meeting of the War Policy Committee on 11 October 1917, Lloyd George authorised the offensive to continue, but warning of failure in three weeks' time. Hankey (21 October) claimed in his diary that Lloyd George had deliberately allowed Passchendaele to continue in order to discredit Haig and Robertson and make it easier for him to forbid similar offensives in 1918.[81]

Supreme War Council

Lloyd George played a critical role in the Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour's famous Declaration: "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The Italians suffered disastrous defeat at Caporetto, requiring British and French reinforcements to be sent. Lloyd George said he "wanted to take advantage of Caporetto to gain "control of the War".[82] The Supreme War Council was inaugurated at the Rapallo Conference (6–7 November 1917). Lloyd George then gave a controversial speech at Paris (12 November) at which he criticised the high casualties of recent Allied "victories" (a word which he used with an element of sarcasm). These events led to an angry Commons debate (19 November), which Lloyd George survived.[83]

In reply to Robertson's 19 November memo, which warned (correctly) that the Germans would use the opportunity of Russia's departure from the war to attack in 1918 before the Americans were present in strength, Lloyd George wrote (wrongly) that the Germans would not attack and would fail if they did. That autumn he declared that he was willing "to risk his whole political reputation" to avoid a repetition of the Somme or Passchendaele.[84]

In December 1917 Lloyd George remarked to C. P. Scott that: "If people really knew, the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know, and can't know."[85]

Manpower crisis and the unions

A Manpower Committee was set up on 6 December 1917, consisting of the Prime Minister, Curzon, Carson, George Barnes and Smuts with Maurice Hankey as secretary, and Auckland Geddes (Minister of National Service – in charge of Army recruitment) in regular attendance.[86]:366

The first meeting of the Manpower Committee was on 10 December, and it met twice the next day and again on 15 December. Lloyd George questioned Generals Macready (Adjutant-General) and Macdonogh (Chief of Military Intelligence), who advised that the Allied superiority of numbers on the Western Front would not survive the transfer of German reinforcements from the East now that Russia was dropping out of the war. Deeply concerned about the publicity attracted by the recent Lansdowne Letter's mention of casualties, he suggested removing Haig and Robertson from office at this time, but this was met by a threat of resignation from Lord Derby. At this stage Lloyd George opposed extending conscription to Ireland – Carson advised that extending conscription to Ulster alone would be impractical.[86]:366-369

When Hankey's report eventually emerged it reflected Lloyd George's wishes: it gave top priority to shipbuilding and merchant shipping (not least to ship US troops to Europe), and placed Army manpower below both weapons production and civilian industry. The size of the Army in Britain was to be reduced from eight divisions to four, freeing about 40,000 men for service in France.[86]:369-370. In the House of Commons (20 December) Lloyd George also argued that the collapse of Russia and defeat of Italy required further "combing-out" of men from industry, in breach of pledges given to the trade unions in 1916. Auckland Geddes was given increased powers to direct labour – a new bill became law, despite the opposition of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, in February 1918.[86]:369-370

The unions were placated with the Caxton Hall conference (5 January 1918), at which Lloyd George outlined Allied war aims. He called for Germany to be stripped of her conquests (including her colonies, and Alsace-Lorraine, annexed in 1871) and democratised (although he was clear that this was not an Allied war aim, but something which would help to ensure the future peace of Europe), and for the liberation of the subject peoples of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. He also hinted at reparations (although it was suggested that these would not be on the scale imposed on France after 1871) and a new international order. Lloyd George explained to critics that he was hoping to detach Austria-Hungary and turn the German people against her rulers; the speech greatly increased his support amongst trade unions and the Labour Party.[87]:380-383 President Wilson at first considered abandoning his speech outlining US war aims – the "Fourteen Points", many of which were similar to the aims outlined by Lloyd George – but was persuaded by his adviser Colonel House to deliver it. Wilson's speech (8 January) overshadowed Lloyd George's, and is better remembered by posterity.[87]:383-385

Strategic priorities

Lloyd George had told Edmund Allenby, who was appointed the new commander in Egypt in June, that his objective was "Jerusalem before Christmas" and that he had only to ask for reinforcements, although the exact nature of his offensives was still undecided when he was appointed. Amidst months of argument throughout the autumn of 1917 Robertson was able to block Lloyd George's plan to make Palestine the main theatre of operations by having Allenby make the impossible demand that thirteen extra divisions be sent to him.[88][89] Allenby captured Jerusalem in December 1917.

In the winter of 1917/18 Lloyd George secured the resignations of both the service chiefs. Removing the First Sea Lord Admiral Jellicoe earlier in 1917, as Lloyd George wanted, would have been politically impossible given Conservative anger at the return of Churchill (still blamed for the Dardanelles) to office as Minister of Munitions in July, and Lloyd George's preoccupations with Passchendaele, Caporetto and the Supreme War Council from July onward. By December it was clear that Lloyd George would have to sack Jellicoe or lose Eric Geddes (First Lord of the Admiralty), who wanted to return to his previous job in charge of military transport in France. The Christmas holiday, when Parliament was not sitting, provided a good opportunity. Before Jellicoe left for leave on Christmas Eve he received a letter from Geddes demanding his resignation. The other Sea Lords talked of resigning but did not do so, whilst Jellicoe's ally Carson remained a member of the War Cabinet until he resigned in January over Irish Home Rule.[86]:371-376

Relations with General Robertson had worsened further over the creation of the Supreme War Council at Versailles and he was eventually forced out over his insistence that the British delegate there be subordinate to Robertson as CIGS in London.[90]

Home Front


Order of Merit

The War Cabinet was a very successful innovation. It met almost daily, with Maurice Hankey as secretary, and made all major political, military, economic and diplomatic decisions. Rationing was finally imposed in early 1918 for meat, sugar and fats (butter and margarine) – but not bread; the new system worked smoothly. From 1914 to 1918 trade-union membership doubled, from a little over four million to a little over eight million. Work stoppages and strikes became frequent in 1917–18 as the unions expressed grievances regarding prices, alcohol control, pay disputes, dilution of labour, fatigue from overtime and from Sunday work, and inadequate housing.[citation needed]

The Corn Production Act 1917 bestowed upon the Board of Agriculture the power to ensure that all land was properly cultivated, appointed a wages board to operate a new minimum wage in agriculture, and guaranteed minimum prices for wheat and oats.[91]

Conscription put into uniform nearly every physically fit man, six million out of ten million eligible. Of these about 750,000 lost their lives and 1,700,000 were wounded. Most deaths were of young unmarried men; however, 160,000 wives lost their husbands and 300,000 children lost their fathers.[92]

Crises of 1918

In rapid succession in spring 1918 came a series of military and political crises.[93] The Germans, having moved troops from the Eastern front and retrained them in new tactics, now had more soldiers on the Western Front than the Allies. Germany launched the full scale Spring Offensive starting on 21 March against the British and French lines, hoping for victory on the battlefield before the American troops arrived in numbers. The Allied armies fell back 40 miles in confusion, and, facing defeat, London realised it needed more troops to fight a mobile war. Lloyd George found half a million soldiers and rushed them to France, asked American President Woodrow Wilson for immediate help, and agreed to the appointment of French General Foch as commander in chief on the Western Front. He considered taking on the role of War Minister himself, but was dissuaded by the king, and instead appointed Lord Milner.[94]:478-483

Despite strong warnings that it was a bad idea, the War Cabinet decided to impose conscription on Ireland. The main reason was that trade unions in Britain demanded it as the price for cutting back on conscription exemptions for certain workers. Labour wanted the principle established that no one was exempt, but it did not demand that conscription actually take place in Ireland. The proposal was enacted but never enforced. The Catholic bishops for the first time entered the fray and called for open resistance to conscription. Many Irish Catholics and nationalists moved into Sinn Féin, a decisive moment marking the dominance of Irish politics by a party committed to leaving the UK altogether.[95][94]:465-488

At one point Lloyd George unknowingly misled the House of Commons in claiming that Haig's forces were stronger at the start of 1918 than they had been a year earlier – in fact the increase was in the number of labourers, most of them Chinese, Indians and black South Africans, and Haig had fewer infantry, holding a longer stretch of front.[96] The prime minister had used incorrect information furnished by the War Department office headed by Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice. Maurice then made the spectacular public allegation that the War Cabinet had deliberately held soldiers back from the Western Front, and both Lloyd George and Bonar Law had lied to Parliament about it. Instead of going to the prime minister about the problem Maurice had waited and then broke King's Regulations by making a public attack. Asquith, still Liberal Party leader, took up the allegations and called for a Parliamentary Inquiry. While Asquith's presentation was poorly done, Lloyd George vigorously defended his position, treating the debate as a vote of confidence. He won over the House with a powerful refutation of Maurice's allegations. The Liberal Party was openly split for the first time.[97][98]

Meanwhile, the German offensive stalled. By summer the Americans were sending 10,000 fresh men a day to the Western Front, a speedup made possible by leaving their equipment behind and using British and French munitions. The German army had used up its last reserves and was steadily shrinking in numbers, further weakening its resolve. Victory came on 11 November 1918.[99]

That autumn Lloyd George was one of the many infected during the 1918 flu pandemic, but he survived.[100]

Postwar Prime Minister (1918–1922)


Snowed under

St. Bernard Pup (to his Master). "This situation appeals to my hereditary instincts. Shall I come to the rescue?"
[Before leaving Switzerland Mr. Lloyd George purchased a St. Bernard pup.]
Cartoon from Punch 15 September 1920

At the end of the war Lloyd George's reputation stood at its zenith. Bonar Law, who was from a similar modest provincial background, said "He can be dictator for life if he wishes."[101] Headlines at this time declared a "huge majority win" and that "pacifists, even 'shining lights' such as Arnold Lupton, had been completely overthrown by Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden".[102]

Coupon election of 1918

Main article: 1918 United Kingdom general election

In the "Coupon election" of December 1918 he led a coalition of Conservatives and his own faction of Liberals to a landslide victory.[103] Coalition candidates received a "coalition coupon" (an endorsement letter signed by Lloyd George and Bonar Law). He did not say "We shall squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak" (that was Sir Eric Geddes), but he did express that sentiment about reparations from Germany to pay the entire cost of the war, including pensions. He said that German industrial capacity "will go a pretty long way". We must have "the uttermost farthing", and "shall search their pockets for it".[104] As the campaign closed, he summarised his programme:[105]

1. Trial of the exiled Kaiser Wilhelm II;
2. Punishment of those guilty of atrocities;
3. Fullest indemnity from Germany;
4. Britain for the British, socially and industrially;
5. Rehabilitation of those broken in the war; and
6. A happier country for all.

The election was fought not so much on the peace issue and what to do with Germany, although those themes played a role. More important was the voters' evaluation of Lloyd George in terms of what he had accomplished so far and what he promised for the future. His supporters emphasised that he had won the Great War. Against his strong record in social legislation, he himself called for making "a country fit for heroes to live in".[106]

The Coalition gained an overwhelming victory, winning 525 of the 707 seats contested; however, the Conservatives had more than two-thirds of the Coalition's seats. Asquith's independent Liberals were crushed, although they were still the official opposition as the two Liberal factions combined had more seats than Labour.[107] Accounts vary about the factional allegiance of some MPs: by some accounts as few as 29 uncouponed Liberals had been elected, only 3 with any junior ministerial experience, and only 23 of them were actually opponents of the coalition. Until April 1919 the government whip was extended to all Liberal MPs and Lloyd George might easily have been elected chairman of the Liberal MPs (Asquith was still party leader but had lost his seat) had he been willing to antagonise his Conservative coalition partners by doing so.[108]

Paris 1919


Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George and Vittorio Orlando at Paris


"The Big Four" made all the major decisions at the Paris Peace Conference (from left to right, Lloyd George, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of Italy, Georges Clemenceau of France, Woodrow Wilson of the U.S.)

Lloyd George represented Britain at the Paris Peace Conference, clashing with the French Prime Minister, Georges Clemenceau, the US President, Woodrow Wilson, and the Italian Prime Minister, Vittorio Orlando.[109] Unlike Clemenceau and Orlando, Lloyd George on the whole stood on the side of generosity and moderation. He did not want to utterly destroy the German economy and political system—as Clemenceau demanded—with massive reparations. The economist John Maynard Keynes looked askance at Lloyd George's economic credentials in The Economic Consequences of the Peace,[citation needed] and in Essays in Biography called the Prime Minister a "goat-footed bard, half-human visitor to our age from the hag-ridden magic and enchanted woods of Celtic antiquity".[110]

Lloyd George was also responsible for the pro-German shift in the peace conditions regarding borders of Poland. Instead of handing over Upper Silesia (2,073,000 people), and the southern part of East Prussia (720,000 people) to Poland as was planned before, the plebiscite was organised. Danzig (366,000 people) was organised as Free City of Danzig. Poles were grateful that he had saved that country from the Bolsheviks but were annoyed by his comment that Poles were "children who gave trouble".[111] Asked how he had done at the peace conference, he commented, "I think I did as well as might be expected, seated as I was between Jesus Christ [Wilson] and Napoleon Bonaparte [Clemenceau]."[112]

Historian Antony Lentin evaluated his role in Paris as a major success, saying:

He was an unrivalled negotiator: on top of his brief, full of bounce, sure of himself, forceful, engaging, compelling....Acutely sensitive to what he divined as the motive force in his listeners, he was adept at finding the right tone and turn of phrase to divert that force in the desired direction....[he had] powerful combative instincts, executive drive and an indomitable determination to succeed....[He secured] as visible and immediate trophies...the spoils of empire: the coveted Middle Eastern mandates, protecting the route to India and rich in oil. There were the confiscated German colonies in Africa and the South Pacific, making a reality of British rule from Cairo to the Cape and setting the far-flung bounds of Empire at their widest....[while being] wholly in accord with British interest in a continental balance of power.[113]

Postwar social reforms

A major programme of social reform was introduced under Lloyd George in the last months of the war, and in the post-war years. The Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act 1918 (which was introduced a year later) allowed for compensation to be paid to men "who could prove they had worked in rock which contained no less than 80% silica."[114] The Education Act 1918 raised the school leaving age to 14, increased the powers and duties of the Board of Education (together with the money it could provide to Local Education Authorities), and introduced a system of compulsory part-time continuation schools for children between the ages of 14 and 16.[115] The Blind Persons Act 1920 provided assistance for unemployed blind people and blind persons who were in low paid employment.[116]

The Housing and Town Planning Act 1919 provided subsidies for house building by local authorities, and 170,000 dwellings were built under it by the end of 1922.[117] which established, according to A. J. P. Taylor, "the principle that housing was a social service".[118] A further 30,000 houses were constructed by private enterprise with government subsidy under a second act.[117] The Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919 and Land Settlement (Scotland) Acts of 1919 encouraged local authorities to provide land for people to take up farming "and also to provide allotments in urban areas."

The Rent Act 1920 was intended to safeguard working-class tenants against exorbitant rent increases, but it failed.[119][page needed] Rent controls were continued after the war, and an "out-of-work donation" was introduced for ex-servicemen and civilians.[120]

Electoral changes: Suffragism

Main article: Women's suffrage in Wales § David Lloyd George and the suffrage movement, 1907–1912

The Representation of the People Act 1918 greatly extended the franchise for men (by abolishing most property qualifications) and gave the vote to many women over 30, and the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 enabled women to sit in the House of Commons. The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 provided that "A person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming or carrying on any civil profession or vocation, or for admission to any incorporated society...".

Wages for Workers

The Unemployment Insurance Act 1920 extended national insurance to 11 million additional workers. This was considered to be a revolutionary measure, in that it extended unemployment insurance to almost the entire labour force, whereas only certain categories of workers had been covered before.[121] As a result of this legislation, roughly three-quarters of the British workforce were now covered by unemployment insurance.[122]


Lloyd George with Japanese Prince Hirohito, 1921

The Agriculture Act 1920 provided for farm labourers to receive a minimum wage while the state continued to guarantee the prices of farm produce until 1921. It also provided tenant farmers with greater protection by granting them better security of tenure[123][page needed] In education, teachers' salaries were standardised, and more than doubled from pre-War levels, in 1921 by the Burnham Committee.[124]

The Mining Industry Act 1920 placed a mandatory requirement to provide social welfare opportunities to mining communities,[125] while the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Act 1921 increased the obligation of local authorities to treat and prevent TB.[126]

Health for the Heroes

In 1919, the government set up a Ministry of Health, a development which led to major improvements in public health in the years that followed.[121] whilst the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provisions) Act 1921 provided payments for the wives and dependent children of unemployed workers.[127] The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 prohibited the employment of children below the limit of compulsory school age in railways and transport undertakings, building and engineering construction works, factories, and mines. The legislation also prohibited the employment of children in ships at sea (except in certain circumstances, such as in respect of family members employed on the same vessel).[128]


Portrait of David Lloyd George by Hal Hurst, 1915

The National Health Insurance Act 1920 increased insurance benefits, and eligibility for pensions was extended to more people. The means limit for pensions was raised by about two-thirds, aliens and their wives were allowed to receive pensions after living in Britain for ten years, and the imprisonment and "failure to work" disqualifications for receiving pensions were abolished.[citation needed] The Blind Persons Act 1920 reduced the pension age for blind people from 70 to 50.[129]

Old age pensions were nearly doubled (from £26 5s to £47 5s a year),[124] efforts were made to help returning soldiers find employment, and the Whitley Councils of employees and employers set up.[130]

What was the cost?

The reforming efforts of the Coalition Government were such that, according to the historian Kenneth O. Morgan, its achievements were greater than those of the pre-war Liberal governments; however, the reform programme was substantially rolled back by the Geddes Axe, which cut public expenditure by £76 million, including substantial cuts to education,[131] and abolished the Agricultural Wages Board.[132]

Ireland

The armed insurrection by Irish republicans, known as the Easter Rising, took place in Dublin during Easter Week, 1916. The government responded with harsh repression; key leaders were quickly executed. The mostly Catholic Irish nationalists then underwent a dramatic change of mood, and shifted to demand vengeance and independence.[133][134] In 1917 Lloyd George called the 1917–18 Irish Convention in an attempt to settle the outstanding Home Rule for Ireland issue; however, the upsurge in republican sympathies in Ireland following the Easter Rising coupled with Lloyd George's disastrous attempt to extend conscription to Ireland in April 1918 led to the wipeout of the Irish Parliamentary Party at the December 1918 election.[135] Replaced by Sinn Féin MPs, they immediately declared an Irish Republic.

Lloyd George presided over the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which partitioned Ireland into Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland in May 1921 during the Anglo-Irish War. Lloyd George famously declared of the Irish Republican Army that "We have murder by the throat!"[136] However, he soon afterwards began negotiations with IRA leaders to recognise their authority and to end a bloody conflict. This culminated in the Anglo-Irish Treaty signed in December 1921 with Irish leaders. Under it Southern Ireland, representing over a fifth of the United Kingdom's territory, seceded in 1922 to form the Irish Free State.

Foreign policy crises


Lloyd George in 1922

A series of foreign policy crises gave Lloyd George his last opportunity to hold national and international leadership. Everything went wrong.[137] The League of Nations got off to a slow start and was largely ineffective. The Treaty of Versailles had set up a series of temporary organisations, composed of delegations from key powers, to ensure the successful application of the Treaty. The system worked poorly. The assembly of ambassadors was repeatedly overruled and became a nonentity. Most of the commissions were deeply divided and unable to either make decisions or convince the interested parties to carry them out. The most important commission was on Reparations, and France seized full control of it.[138] Raymond Poincaré, president of France, was intensely anti-German, was unrelenting in his demands for huge reparations, and was repeatedly challenged by Germany. France finally invaded western Germany, and Berlin responded by imposing a runaway inflation that seriously damaged the German economy and also damaged the French economy.[139] The United States, after refusing to ratify the League in 1920, almost completely disassociated itself from it. In 1921 the U.S. set up its own international programme for world disarmament that led to the successful Washington Naval Conference, leaving only a minor role for Britain. As the reparations crisis escalated, the United States seized control of it too, with the Dawes Plan of 1924 by which American banks loaned large sums to Germany, which paid reparations to the Allies, who in turn paid off their war loans to the United States.[140] In 1921 Lloyd George successfully concluded the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement. Despite much effort he was unable to negotiate full diplomatic relations, as the Russians rejected all repayment of Tsarist era debts, and Conservatives in Britain grew exceedingly wary of the communist threat to European stability. Indeed, Henry Wilson, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, believed Lloyd George had become "a traitor & a Bolshevist".[141] Lloyd George in 1922 set about to make himself master of peace in the world, especially through the Genoa Conference that he expected would rival Paris of 1919 in visibility, and restore his reputation. Poincaré and the French demanded a military alliance that was far beyond what the British would accept. Germany and Russia made their own agreement at Rapallo which wrecked the Genoa conference.[142] Finally, Lloyd George decided to support Greece in a war against Turkey. This led to the Chanak Crisis when the Dominions, with the exception of Newfoundalnd and New Zealand, rejected the British policy and refused to support the proposed war.[143]

Domestic crises

The more conservative wing of the Unionist Party had no intention of introducing reforms, which led to three years of frustrated fighting within the coalition both between the National Liberals and the Unionists and between factions within the Conservatives themselves. Many Conservatives were angered by the granting of independence to the Irish Free State and by Edwin Montagu's moves towards limited self-government for India, while a sharp economic downturn and wave of strikes in 1921 damaged Lloyd George's credibility. A scandal erupted in 1922 when it became known that Lloyd George had awarded honours and titles, such as baronetcies, to rich businessmen in return for cash in the range of £10,000 and more, via Maundy Gregory. A major attack on his corruption in the House of Lords followed, resulting in the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. Other complaints were that the Cabinet contained too many Scots, too few men from Oxbridge and the great public schools, too many businessmen, and too few gentlemen.[144]:330-331[145]

Fall from power 1922


Lloyd George statue at Caernarfon Castle (1921), in recognition of his service as local MP and Prime Minister

The coalition was dealt its final blow in October 1922. The Conservatives felt let down by France over the Chanak Crisis, with Bonar Law telling France, "We cannot act alone as the policeman of the world."[146] The Conservative leader, Austen Chamberlain, summoned a meeting of Conservative Members of Parliament at the Carlton Club to discuss their attitude to the Coalition in the forthcoming election. Chamberlain and most Conservative leaders supported Lloyd George; however, the rank and file rejected the coalition. The main attack came from Stanley Baldwin, then President of the Board of Trade, who spoke of Lloyd George as a "dynamic force" who would break the Conservative Party. They sealed Lloyd George's fate on 19 October 1922 by voting in favour of the motion to end the coalition and fight the election "as an independent party, with its own leader and its own programme." Lloyd George submitted his resignation to the King that afternoon.[147][148]

Later political career (1922–1945)

Liberal reunion


David Lloyd George

Throughout the 1920s Lloyd George remained highly visible in politics; predictions that he would return to power were common, but it never happened.[149] He still controlled a large fund (thought to have been between £1m and £3m, or £50m–£150m at 2015 prices) from his investments in newspaper ownership and from his sale of titles.[150][151]

Before the 1923 election, he resolved his dispute with Asquith, allowing the Liberals to run a united ticket against Stanley Baldwin's policy of protective tariffs. Baldwin both feared and despised Lloyd George, and one of his aims was to keep him out of power. He later claimed that he had adopted tariffs, which cost the Conservatives their majority, out of concern that Lloyd George was about to do so on his return from a tour of North America. Although there was press speculation at the time that Lloyd George would do so (or adopt US-style Prohibition to appeal to newly enfranchised women voters), there is no evidence that this was his intent.[152] Asquith and Lloyd George reached agreement on 13 November 1923 and issued a joint Free Trade manifesto, followed by a more general one. Lloyd George agreed to contribute £100,000 (in the event he claimed to have contributed £160,000 including help given to individual candidates; Liberal HQ put the number at £90,000).[153]

In 1924 Lloyd George, realising that Liberal defeat was inevitable and keen to take control of the party himself, spent only £60,000.[154]:631 At the 1924 general election, Baldwin won a clear victory. Despite having a large majority, he appointed the leading coalitionists such as Austen Chamberlain and Lord Birkenhead (and former Liberal Winston Churchill) to senior cabinet places, to discourage any restoration of the 1916–1922 coalition.[155]

Liberal leader


Vera Weizmann, Chaim Weizmann, Herbert Samuel, Lloyd George, Ethel Snowden, and Philip Snowden

The disastrous election result in 1924 left the Liberals as a weak third party in British politics, with just over 40 MPs. Although Asquith, who had again lost his seat and was created an Earl, remained Liberal leader, Lloyd George was elected chairman of the Liberal MPs by 26 votes to 7. Sir John Simon and his followers were still loyal to Asquith (after 1931 Simon would lead a breakaway National Liberal Party, which eventually merged with the Conservatives) whilst Walter Runciman led a separate radical group within the Parliamentary Party.[156]

Lloyd George was now mainly interested in the reform of land ownership, but had only been permitted to put a brief paragraph about it in the hastily drafted 1924 Liberal manifesto. In the autumn of 1925, despite the hostility of Charles Hobhouse, Runciman and Alfred Mond, he began an independent campaign, soon to become "The Land and the Nation" (the Green Book, first of a series of policy papers produced by Lloyd George in the late 1920s). Asquith rebuked him, but was ignored, and they reached an agreement in principle on 2 December, then together they presented Lloyd George's plans to the National Liberal Federation on 26 February 1926.[157][158]

The Liberal Shadow Cabinet, including Lloyd George, unequivocally backed Baldwin's handling of the General Strike on 3 May, but Lloyd George then wrote an article for the American press more sympathetic to the strikers, and did not attend the Shadow Cabinet on 10 May, sending his apologies on "policy grounds". Asquith sent him a public letter (20 May) rebuking him for not attending the meeting to discuss his opinions with colleagues in private. Lloyd George's letter of 10 May had not been published, making it appear that Asquith had fired the first shot, and Lloyd George sent a public reply, moderate in tone (the journalist C. P. Scott helped him draft it), on 25 May. In late May, the executive of the National Liberal Federation convened to plan the agenda for the following month's conference. 16 were pro Asquith and 8 pro Lloyd George; they planned a motion expressing confidence in Asquith, but another option was also proposed to seek Asquith's opinion first, and also general feeling of regret at having been forced to choose between Asquith and Lloyd George. Asquith then wrote another public letter (1 June) stating that he regarded Lloyd George's behaviour as tantamount to resignation, the same as if a Cabinet Minister had refused to abide by the principle of collective responsibility. Twelve leading Liberals wrote in Asquith's support to The Times (1 June); however, Lloyd George had more support in the wider party than among the grandees: the London Liberal Candidates' Association (3 June) defied its officers and expressed its dismay at the split, effectively supporting Lloyd George, and on 8 June the Liberal MPs voted 20:10 urging a reconciliation. Asquith had planned to launch a fightback at the National Liberal Federation in Weston-Super-Mare, but on 12 June, five days before the conference was due to start, he suffered a stroke which put him out of action for three months. Lloyd George was given a rapturous welcome. Asquith resigned as party leader in October, dying in 1928.[159][160]

As Liberal leader at last, Lloyd George used his fund to finance candidates and put forward innovative ideas for public works to reduce unemployment, detailed in works such as Britain's Industrial Future (known as the Yellow Book), and We Can Conquer Unemployment (known as the Orange Book). Charles Masterman, a member of the commission which prepared Britain's Industrial Future, wrote: "When Lloyd George came back to the party, ideas came back to the party".[161] Lloyd George was helped by John Maynard Keynes to write We Can Conquer Unemployment, setting out economic policies to solve unemployment. In 1927 Lloyd George gave £300,000 and an annual grant of between £30,000 and £40,000 for the operations of the Liberal headquarters. He also gave £2,000 per annum to the parliamentary party until 1931.[162][154]:630 Even with the money the results at the 1929 general election were disappointing. The Liberals increased their support only to 60 or so seats, while Labour became the largest party for the first time. Once again, the Liberals ended up supporting a minority Labour government. In 1929 Lloyd George became Father of the House (longest-serving member of the Commons), an honorific position without power.

Marginalised

In 1931 an illness prevented his joining the National Government when it was formed. Later when the National Government called a General Election he tried to pull the Liberal Party out of it but succeeded in taking only a few followers, most of whom were related to him; the main Liberal Party remained in the coalition for a year longer, under the leadership of Sir Herbert Samuel. By the 1930s Lloyd George was on the margins of British politics, although still intermittently in the public eye and publishing his War Memoirs. Lloyd George was President of the London Welsh Trust, which runs the London Welsh Centre, Gray's Inn Road, from 1934 until 1935.[163]

Lloyd George's "New Deal"


Lloyd George in 1932

In January 1935 Lloyd George announced a programme of economic reform, called "Lloyd George's New Deal" after the American New Deal. This Keynesian economic programme was essentially the same as that of 1929. MacDonald requested that he put his case before the Cabinet, and so in March Lloyd George submitted a 100-page memorandum (published as Organizing Prosperity: A Scheme of National Reconstruction)[164] that was cross-examined between April and June in ten meetings of the Cabinet's sub-committee; however, the programme did not find favour; two-thirds of Conservative MPs were against Lloyd George joining the National government, and some Cabinet members would have resigned if he had joined.[165]

[admin]

Part 3 of 3

Appeasement of Germany

Lloyd George was consistently pro-German after 1923.[166] He supported German demands for territorial concessions and recognition of its "great power" status; he paid much less attention to the security concerns of France, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Belgium.[167] In a speech in 1933 he warned that if Adolf Hitler were overthrown Communism would replace him in Germany.[168] In August 1934 (following Austria's transition to fascism), he insisted Germany could not wage war, and assured European nations that there would be no risk of war during the next ten years.[169] In September 1936, he went to Germany to talk with Hitler. Hitler said he was pleased to have met "the man who won the war"; Lloyd George was moved, and called Hitler "the greatest living German".[170] Lloyd George also visited Germany's public works programmes and was impressed. On his return to Britain, he wrote an article for the Daily Express praising Hitler, stating: "The Germans have definitely made up their minds never to quarrel with us again."[171] He believed Hitler was "the George Washington of Germany"; that he was rearming Germany for defence and not for offensive war; that a war between Germany and the Soviet Union would not happen for at least ten years; that Hitler admired the British and wanted their friendship but that there was no British leadership to exploit this; however, by 1937, Lloyd George's distaste for Neville Chamberlain led him to disavow Chamberlain's appeasement policies.[171][172]

Final years

In the last important parliamentary intervention of his career, which occurred during the crucial Norway Debate of May 1940, Lloyd George made a powerful speech that helped to undermine Chamberlain as Prime Minister and to pave the way for the ascendancy of Churchill. Churchill offered Lloyd George the agriculture portfolio in his Cabinet but he refused, citing his unwillingness to sit alongside Chamberlain. Lloyd George also thought that Britain's chances in the war were dim, and he remarked to his secretary: "I shall wait until Winston is bust."[173] He wrote to the Duke of Bedford in September 1940, during the Battle of Britain, advocating a negotiated peace with Germany.[174]

A pessimistic speech by Lloyd George on 7 May 1941 led Churchill to compare him with Philippe Pétain. On 11 June 1942, he made his last speech in the House of Commons, and he cast his last vote in the Commons on 18 February 1943 as one of the 121 MPs (97 Labour) condemning the Government for its failure to back the Beveridge Report. Fittingly, his final vote was in defence of the welfare state which he had helped to create.[175]

Although he had displayed political courage all his life, in his last years he gave way to physical timidity and hypochondria.[citation needed] He continued to attend Castle Street Baptist Chapel in London, and to preside over the National Eisteddfod at its Thursday session each summer. In September 1944 he and Frances left his home, Bron-y-de in Churt, for Tŷ Newydd, a farm near his boyhood home in Llanystumdwy. He was now weakening rapidly and his voice failing. He was still an MP but, concerned about his health (he felt physically unable to campaign) and the wartime social changes in the constituency, he feared Carnarvon Boroughs might go Conservative at the next election.[176] Wishing, as the last surviving author of the Versailles settlement, to have an official platform to speak on any peace settlement he accepted a peerage.[176] It was announced in the 1945 New Year Honours that Lloyd George would be made an earl, which he was as Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, and Viscount Gwynedd, of Dwyfor in the County of Caernarvonshire on 12 February 1945; however, he did not live long enough to take his seat in the House of Lords.[177]

Death


Lloyd George's grave, Llanystumdwy

Lloyd George died of cancer at the age of 82 on 26 March 1945, with his wife Frances and his daughter Megan at his bedside. Four days later, on Good Friday, he was buried beside the river Dwyfor in Llanystumdwy.[178] A boulder marks the grave; there is no inscription; however a monument designed by the architect Sir Clough Williams-Ellis was subsequently erected around the grave,[179] bearing an englyn (strict-metre stanza) engraved on slate in his memory composed by his nephew Dr W. R. P. George. Nearby stands the Lloyd George Museum, also designed by Williams-Ellis and opened in 1963.

Assessment

Lloyd George has often been ranked highly among modern British prime ministers, but his legacy remains complicated and controversial. Scholars have praised his welfare reforms and his efforts to mobilise and lead Britain to victory during the First World War, but he has also been criticised for adopting a "presidential" style of leadership, for distrusting his own commanders during the war, and for his strategic failures and involvement in various scandals. His legacies over Ireland and the Treaty of Versailles are also controversial. In the post-war period he arguably alienated many of the workers he had earlier championed, helping to swell Labour's popular support at the Liberals' expense (not helped by his conflicts with Asquithian Liberals after 1916).

Historian Martin Pugh in The Oxford Companion to British History argues that:

[Lloyd George] made a greater impact on British public life than any other 20th-cent. statesman. He laid the foundations of what later became the welfare state, and put a progressive income tax system at the centre of government finance. He also left his mark on the system of government by enlarging the scope of the prime minister's role. He was acclaimed, not without reason, as the 'Man Who Won the War'....he was blamed by many Liberals for destroying their party in 1918, hated in the Labour movement for his handling of industrial issues after 1918, and disparaged by Conservatives for his radicalism.[180]

George Riddell, 1st Baron Riddell, a wealthy newspaper publisher, was a close confidant and financial supporter of Lloyd George from 1908 to 1922, and Riddell's revealing diary is a valuable source for the period.[181] During Lloyd George's first year as prime minister, in summer 1917, Riddell assessed his personality:

His energy, capacity for work, and power of recuperation are remarkable. He has an extraordinary memory, imagination, and the art of getting at the root of a matter....He is not afraid of responsibility, and has no respect for tradition or convention. He is always ready to examine, scrap or revise established theories and practices. These qualities give him unlimited confidence in himself.... He is one of the craftiest of men, and his extraordinary charm of manner not only wins him friends, but does much to soften the asperities of his opponents and enemies. He is full of humour and a born actor....He has an instinctive power of divining the thoughts and intentions of people with whom he is conversing...His chief defects are: (1) Lack of appreciation of existing institutions, organisations, and stolid, dull people...their ways are not his ways and their methods are not his methods. (2) Fondness for a grandiose scheme in preference to an attempt to improve existing machinery. (3) Disregard of difficulties in carrying out big projects...he is not a man of detail.[182]

In 2007, historian John Shepherd wrote in History Today:

In any poll of modern historians Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George would emerge as the two most renowned prime ministers during the past century.[183]

Family

Margaret and children


David Lloyd George with his daughter Megan in 1911

He had five children by his first wife, Margaret: Richard (1889–1968), Mair (1890–1907, who died during an appendectomy), Olwen (1892–1990), Gwilym (1894–1967) and Megan (1902–1966). Despite his long-term affair with Frances Stevenson, he remained married to Margaret, and remained fond of her until her death[184]:6 on 20 January 1941; Lloyd George was deeply upset by the fact that bad weather prevented him from being with her when she died.

Gwilym and Megan both followed him into politics, and were elected members of parliament. They were politically faithful to their father throughout his life, but after 1945 each drifted away from the Liberal Party, Gwilym finishing his career as a Conservative Home Secretary and Megan becoming a Labour MP in 1957.

Frances

Lloyd George met Frances Stevenson in 1910; she worked for him first as a teacher for Megan in 1911;[184]:1 she became his secretary and, from early 1913, his long-term mistress.[184]:11-12 Lloyd George may have been the father of Stevenson's daughter Jennifer (1929–2012), born long before they wed,[185] but it is more likely that she was the daughter of Thomas Tweed, with whom Stevenson had had an affair.[186] To the disapproval of his children he finally married Frances in October 1943; he was aged 80 at the time.[187]:154-156

Frances was the first Countess Lloyd-George, and is now largely remembered for her diaries, which dealt with the great issues, and statesmen, of Lloyd George's heyday. A volume of their letters, My Darling Pussy, has also been published; Lloyd George's nickname for Frances referred to her gentle personality.[184]:12

Descendants

The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan, who detailed Lloyd George's role at the 1919 Peace Conference in her book, Peacemakers, is his great-granddaughter. The British television historian and presenter Dan Snow is a great-great-grandson.[188] Other descendants include the late Owen, 3rd Earl Lloyd-George, his grandson, and the late 3rd Earl's younger son The Hon. Robert Lloyd George (Chairman of Lloyd George Management),[189] brother of David, the 4th and present Earl, who has two sons: Viscount Gwynedd (born 1986), a journalist, and Captain the Hon. Fred Lloyd George, an officer in the Welsh Guards (born 1987).

Lloyd George's Cabinets

War Cabinet

• Lord Curzon of Kedleston – Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords
• Bonar Law – Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons
• Arthur Henderson – Minister without Portfolio
• Lord Milner – Minister without Portfolio

War Cabinet changes

• May–August 1917 – In temporary absence of Arthur Henderson, George Barnes, Minister of Pensions, acts as a member of the War Cabinet.
• June 1917 – Jan Smuts enters the War Cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio
• July 1917 – Sir Edward Carson enters the War Cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio
• August 1917 – George Barnes succeeds Arthur Henderson (resigned) as Minister without Portfolio and Labour Party member of the War Cabinet.
• January 1918 – Carson resigns and is not replaced
• April 1918 – Austen Chamberlain succeeds Lord Milner as Minister without Portfolio.
• January 1919 Law becomes Lord Privy Seal, remaining Leader of the House of Commons, and is succeeded as Chancellor of the Exchequer by Chamberlain; both remaining in the War Cabinet. Smuts is succeeded by Sir Eric Geddes as Minister without Portfolio.

Other members of Lloyd George's War Government

• Lord Finlay – Lord Chancellor
• Lord Crawford – Lord Privy Seal
• Sir George Cave – Secretary of State for the Home Department
• Arthur Balfour – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
• Walter Long – Secretary of State for the Colonies
• Lord Derby, and then (after April 1918), Lord Milner – Secretary of State for War
• Austen Chamberlain (to 1917), and then Edwin Montagu – Secretary of State for India
• Sir Edward Carson, and then (from 1917) Sir Eric Geddes – First Lord of the Admiralty
• Sir Frederick Cawley (to 1918), and then Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Downham – Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
• Sir Albert Stanley – President of the Board of Trade
• H. E. Duke and then Edward Shortt – Chief Secretary for Ireland
• Hayes Fisher – President of the Local Government Board (to 1918)
• Sir Auckland Geddes – President of the Local Government Board (to 1919)
• Winston Churchill – Minister of Munitions (appointed 17/7/17)
• Neville Chamberlain, and then (from 1917) Sir Auckland Geddes – Director of National Service

Peacetime Government, January 1919 – October 1922

The War Cabinet was formally maintained for much of 1919, but as Lloyd George was out of the country for many months this made little difference. In October 1919 a formal Cabinet was reinstated.

• David Lloyd George — Prime Minister
• Lord Birkenhead – Lord Chancellor
• Lord Curzon of Kedleston – Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords
• Bonar Law – Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons
• Austen Chamberlain – Chancellor of the Exchequer
• Edward Shortt – Secretary of State for the Home Department
• Arthur Balfour – Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
• Lord Milner – Secretary of State for the Colonies
• Winston Churchill – Secretary of State for War and Air
• Edwin Montagu – Secretary of State for India
• Walter Long – First Lord of the Admiralty
• Sir Albert Stanley – President of the Board of Trade
• Robert Munro – Secretary for Scotland
• Ian Macpherson – Chief Secretary for Ireland
• Lord French – Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland
• Christopher Addison – President of the Local Government Board
• Rowland Prothero – President of the Board of Agriculture
• H. A. L. Fisher – President of the Board of Education
• Lord Inverforth – Minister of Munitions
• Sir Robert Horne – Minister of Labour
• George Barnes – Minister without Portfolio
• Sir Eric Geddes – Minister without Portfolio

Peacetime changes

• May 1919 – Sir Auckland Geddes succeeds Sir Albert Stanley as President of the Board of Trade. Sir Eric Geddes becomes Minister of Transport.
• October 1919 – Lord Curzon of Kedleston succeeds Balfour as Foreign Secretary. Balfour succeeds Curzon as Lord President. The Local Government Board is abolished. Christopher Addison becomes Minister of Health. The Board of Agriculture is abolished. Lord Lee of Fareham becomes Minister of Agriculture. Sir Eric Geddes becomes Minister of Transport.
• January 1920 – George Barnes leaves the cabinet.
• March 1920 – Sir Robert Horne succeeds Sir Auckland Geddes as President of the Board of Trade. Thomas Macnamara succeeds Horne as Minister of Labour.
• April 1920 – Sir Hamar Greenwood succeeds Ian Macpherson as Chief Secretary for Ireland. Sir Laming Worthington-Evans joins the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio.
• February 1921 – Winston Churchill succeeds Lord Milner as Colonial Secretary. Sir Laming Worthington-Evans succeeds Churchill as War Secretary. Freddie Guest, Churchill's successor as Air Secretary, was not in the Cabinet. Lord Lee of Fareham succeeds Walter Long at the Admiralty. Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen succeeds Lee as Minister of Agriculture.
• March 1921 – Austen Chamberlain succeeds Bonar Law as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the Commons. Sir Robert Horne succeeds Chamberlain at the Exchequer. Stanley Baldwin succeeds Horne at the Board of Trade.
• April 1921 – Lord French resigns from the cabinet, remaining Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Christopher Addison becomes a Minister without Portfolio. Sir Alfred Mond succeeds him as Minister of Health. The Ministry of Munitions is abolished.
• November 1921 – Sir Eric Geddes resigns from the cabinet. His successor as Minister of Transport, Viscount Peel, is not in the Cabinet. The Attorney General, Sir Gordon Hewart, enters the Cabinet.
• March 1922 – Lord Peel succeeds Edwin Montagu as India Secretary.
• April 1922 – The First Commissioner of Works, Lord Crawford, enters the Cabinet.

Honours


Lloyd George arms

Peerage

• Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor and Viscount Gwynedd of Dwyfor in the county of Caernarvonshire (created 12 February 1945).

Decorations

• Order of Merit (Civil) 1919[190]
• Knight of Grace, Order of Saint John; Chancellor of the Welsh Priory from 1918 and Prior of Wales from 1943.[15]
• Grand Cordon of the Legion of Honour (France) 1920[190]
• Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium)[14]
• Grand Cross of the Order of St Maurice and St Lazarus (Italy)[15]
• Cross of Liberty (Estonia) (3rd class 1st rank) for civilian service, 29 April 1925[191]

Academic

• Oxford University – DCL 1908[190]
o Fellow of Jesus College 1910
• University of Wales – LLD 1908[190]
• Glasgow University – LLD 1917[15]
• University of Edinburgh – LLD 1918[190]
o Rector – 1920[15]
• Durham University – DCL 1919[15]
• Sheffield University – DLitt 1919[190]
• Cambridge University – LLD 1920[15]
• Birmingham University – LLD 1921[15]
• Leeds University – LLD 1922[15]

Freedoms

Lloyd George was made Honorary Freeman of the following cities and towns:[15]

• Blackpool[192] – 1918
• City of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff - 24 June 1908[193], Bristol, York, Glasgow, Barnsley – 1921
• Leeds, Aberystwyth – 1922
• Montreal, Canada; Brecon, Llandovery, Carmarthen, Llanelli, Swansea – 1923
o Master of the Worshipful Company of Curriers (London)

Namesakes

Lloyd George Avenue is an extension of the A470 road, connecting Central Cardiff to Cardiff Bay.

Mount Lloyd George in the Northern Rocky Mountains of British Columbia, Canada was named after Lloyd George during the First World War, and still retains the name.[194]

Kibbutz Ramat David in the Jezreel Valley in northern Israel and the adjacent Ramat David Airbase are named after him.

David Lloyd George Elementary School in Vancouver was named after Lloyd George in 1921.[195]

Cultural depictions

Further information: Cultural depictions of British prime ministers § David Lloyd George

See also: Category:Cultural depictions of David Lloyd George

Selected works

• Better Times, Hodder & Stoughton 1910
• Through Terror to Triumph (edited by Frances Stevenson), Hodder and Stoughton, 1915
• The Great Crusade (edited by Frances Stevenson), Hodder and Stoughton, 1918
• Is It Peace?, Hodder and Stoughton, 1923
• Where Are We Going?, George H. Doran Company, 1923 (American version of Is It Peace?, same contents but re-arranged)
• Slings and Arrows (selected and with an introduction by Philip Guedalla), Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1929
• The Truth About Reparations and War-Debts, William Heinemann Ltd, 1932
• War Memoirs, 6 volumes, Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1933 – 1936: re-published in 2 volumes by Odhams Press, 1938
• Organizing Prosperity, Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1935
• The Truth About the Peace Treaties (published in USA as Memoirs of the Peace Conference), 2 volumes, Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1938

See also

• Interwar Britain
• Biography portal
• Statue of David Lloyd George, Parliament Square
• Lloyd George's Beer Song

Notes

1. James Callaghan represented a Welsh constituency (in Cardiff), but was English by birth, upbringing and language.
2. Scotland has its own education system, separate from that of England and Wales

Citations

1. Jones, Thomas (1951). "Member of Parliament 1890–1906". Lloyd George. London: Oxford University Press. p. 13.
2. Harnden 2011, p. 11
3. Crosby, Travis L. (2014). "The Education of a Statesman". The Unknown Lloyd George. London: I. B. Tauris. ISBN 9781780764856.
4. "Criccieth church of Christ, Wales and David Lloyd George". churches of christ. Retrieved 9 February2016.
5. Grigg, John (1997). "Preface to New Paperback Edition". The Young Lloyd George. London: HarperCollinsPublishers. p. 12. ISBN 000686306X.
6. Cregier 1976, p. 13
7. Owen 1955, p. 31
8. Simkin, John (2015). "David Lloyd George". spartacus-educational.com. Retrieved 10 February2016.
9. Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1992). "The Decline of Liberalism". Lloyd George: A Political Life: Organizer of Victory 1912–1916. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. p. 55. ISBN 0713457279.
10. Bourns, Robert (14 December 2016). "Lloyd George the parliamentarian". The Law Society. Archived from the original on 11 May 2018. Retrieved 11 May2018.
11. Rowland, Peter (1975). "From Back Parlour to Back Bench, 1885-1890". Lloyd George. London: Barrie & Jenkins. ISBN 0214200493.
12. Stevens, Catrin (1 December 2002). "The 'Burial Question': Controversy and Conflict c. 1860-1890". The Welsh History Review. University of Wales Press. 21(2): 328–356. doi:10.16922/whr.21.2.5.
13. Hattersley, Roy (2010). "Not a Gentleman...". David Lloyd George: The Great Outsider. London: Little, Brown. ISBN 9781408700976.
14. Kelly's 1945, p. 1185
15. Burke's 1949, p. 1241
16. Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1987). "Childhood, Youth, the Law and Politics". David Lloyd George: A Political Life: The Architect of Change 1863–1912. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. pp. 75–76. ISBN 0713455586.
17. Rowland, Peter (1975). "M.P. for Caernarvon Boroughs, 1896-1900". Lloyd George. London: Barrie & Jenkins Ltd. pp. 125–126. ISBN 0214200493.
18. Mr. Lloyd George Was Legal Adviser to Dr. Herzl on Uganda Project and Submitted Dr. Herzl's Views
19. Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1987). "The Early Years in Parliament: The Welsh Parnell". David Lloyd George: A Political Life: The Architect of Change 1863–1912. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. pp. 146–147. ISBN 0713455586.
20. Barra, Caoimhín De. "Celts divided by more than the Irish Sea". The Irish Times.
21. Grigg, John (2003). "Crisis at Sea and Revolution in Russia". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1919. Penguin Books. ISBN 0140284273.
22. Hattersley, Roy (2010). "Go for Joe". David Lloyd George: The Great Outsider. London: Little, Brown. pp. 119–144. ISBN 9781408700976.
23. Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1987). "The Free Lancer: The South African War, 1895-1902". Lloyd George: A Political Life: The Architect of Change. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. pp. 178–214. ISBN 0713455586.
24. Hattersley, Roy (2010). "Noncomformity's Champion". David Lloyd George: The Great Outsider. London: Little, Brown. pp. 145–165. ISBN 9781408700976.
25. Daglish, Neil D. (1994). "Lloyd George's Education Bill? Planning the 1906 Education Bill". History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society. 23 (4): 375–384. doi:10.1080/0046760940230403.
26. Crosby, Travis L. (2014). "With Radical Intent?". The Unknown Lloyd George: A Statesman in Conflict. London: I. B. Tauris. ISBN 9781780764856.
27. Crosby, Travis L. (2014). "In the Cabinet". The Unknown Lloyd George: A Statesman in Conflict. London: I. B. Tauris. ISBN 9781780764856.
28. Richards, Noel J. (January 1972). "The Education Bill of 1906 and the Decline of Political Nonconformity". The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. Cambridge University Press. 23 (1): 49–63. doi:10.1017/S0022046900055615.
29. Crosby, Travis L. (2014). ""The Righteousness That Exalteth a Nation"". The Unknown Lloyd George: A Statesman in Conflict. London: I. B. Tauris. ISBN 9781780764856.
30. Robert K. Massie (1992). Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War. pp. 609–15. ISBN 9780307819932.
31. Atkinson, Diane (17 April 2018). Rise up, women! : the remarkable lives of the suffragettes. London. ISBN 978-1-4088-4404-5. OCLC 1016848621.
32. McKinstry 2005, pp. 504–505
33. Ramsden 1998
34. Jenkins, Roy (1998). "David Lloyd George". The Chancellors. Macmillan. ISBN 0333730577.
35. Murray, Bruce (Autumn 2009). "The "People's Budget" a Century On" (PDF). Journal of Liberal History. Liberal Democrat History Group (64): 12. Retrieved 11 May 2018.
36. Hattersley, Roy (2010). "A Reasonable Way Out". David Lloyd George: The Great Outsider. London: Little, Brown. pp. 278–279. ISBN 9781408700976.
37. Watts 2002
38. Alun Howkins and Nicola Verdon. "The state and the farm worker: the evolution of the minimum wage in agriculture in England and Wales, 1909–24." Agricultural History Review 57.2 (2009): 257–274. online
39. Grey 1925, i, pp. 224–225
40. Grey 1925, i, pp. 236–237
41. Pugh, Martin (1988). "The New Liberalism 1908–1914". Lloyd George. Profiles in Power. London and New York: Longman. pp. 59–61. ISBN 0-582-55268-0.
42. Thomas Jones, Lloyd George (1951) pp 18–20, 42.
43. K. O. Morgan, Wales in British Politics (Cardiff, 1963), 259–79.
44. Jenkins, Roy (1986). "The Plunge to War 1914". Asquith (Third ed.). London: Collins. ISBN 0002177129.
45. Koss 1985, p. 156.
46. Koss 1985, p. 157-9.
47. Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1992). "From Crisis into War". Lloyd George: A Political Life: Organizer of Victory 1912–1916. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. pp. 110–113. ISBN 0713457279.
48. Adams 1975, pp. 232–244
49. Grey 1925, ii, pp. 242–244
50. Fraser 1982, pp. 77–94
51. Corrigan 2003, p. 316
52. Corrigan 2003, pp. 309–311
53. Jeffery 2006, p. 176
54. Corrigan 2003, p. 317
55. Woodward 1998, pp. 37–38
56. Woodward 1998, pp. 62–63
57. Woodward 1998, pp. 64–65, 71–72
58. Grey 1925, ii, p. 248
59. Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1992). Lloyd George: A Political Life: Organizer of Victory 1912–1916. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. p. plate facing 260. ISBN 0713457279.
60. Woodward 1998, pp. 79–83
61. Woodward 1998, p. 79
62. Lloyd George, David (1938). "XXXVI Some Personal Sketches". War Memoirs of David Lloyd George. 1 of 2 (New ed.). London: Odhams Press. p. 602.
63. Koss 1985, p. 224.
64. Andrew Blick and George Jones, A Century of Policy Advice at No.10, Part I. Official UK government history of policy advice. See also John Turner, Lloyd George's Secretariat (Cambridge University Press, 1980).
65. Woodward 1998, pp. 119–120
66. Woodward 1998, pp. 83–85
67. Woodward 1998, pp. 88–90
68. Woodward 1998, pp. 90–93
69. Hattersley, Roy (2010). "Frontal Assaults". David Lloyd George: The Great Outsider. London: Little, Brown. pp. 426–433. ISBN 9781408700976.
70. Grigg, John (2003). "Conference at Calais". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916-1918. Penguin Books. pp. 35–44. ISBN 0140284273.
71. Grigg, John (2003). "Nivelle's Nemesis". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916-1918. Penguin Books. pp. 82–98. ISBN 0140284273.
72. Taylor 1976, pp. 80–81, 86
73. Woodward 1998, pp. 136–138
74. Woodward 1998, p. 80
75. Woodward 1998, pp. 136–140
76. Woodward 1998, pp. 139–142
77. Woodward 1998, pp. 144–146
78. Woodward 1998, pp. 190–191
79. Woodward 1998, pp. 146–148
80. Woodward 1998, pp. 148–149
81. Woodward 1998, pp. 64–65, 190–191
82. Woodward 1998, p. 191
83. Woodward 1998, pp. 192–194
84. Woodward 1998, pp. 173–174, 178
85. Glover, Jonathan (11 September 2012). Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, Second Edition. Yale University Press. p. 167. ISBN 9780300186406. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
86. Grigg, John (2003). "Manpower". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918. Penguin Books. ISBN 0140284273.
87. Grigg, John (2003). "Speeches". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918. Penguin Books. ISBN 0140284273.
88. Corrigan 2003, p. 323
89. Woodward 1998, pp. 155–159
90. Grigg, John (2003). "Robertson Goes". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918. Penguin Books. pp. 411–418. ISBN 0140284273.
91. Thorpe 2014, p. 89
92. Havighurst 1966, pp. 134–135
93. Taylor 1976, pp. 100–106
94. Grigg, John (2003). "Extending Conscription". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918. Penguin Books. ISBN 0140284273.
95. Ward 1974, pp. 107–129
96. Hart 2008, p. 229
97. Gooch 1968, pp. 211–228
98. Grigg, John (2003). "The Maurice Affair". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918. Penguin Books. pp. 489–512. ISBN 0140284273.
99. Taylor 1976, pp. 108–111
100. Rowland, Peter (1975). "The Man Who Won the War, 1916-1918". Lloyd George. London: Barrie & Jenkins Ltd. p. 451. ISBN 0214200493.
101. Bogdanor, Vernon (20 January 2011). "The coalition is held together by fear". New Statesman. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
102. "The Victory Election – Pacifists Swept Away". Auckland Star. 17 March 1919. Retrieved 4 January2014.
103. Turner 1992, pp. 317–333
104. Rose 1999, pp. 14–15
105. Havighurst 1985, p. 149
106. Taylor 1976, pp. 127–128
107. Havighurst 1966, p. 151
108. Koss 1985, pp. 241–2
109. MacMillan 2001[page needed]
110. Keynes, John Maynard, Essays in Biography, Harcourt, Brace, 1933, p.36
111. Davies 1971, pp. 132–154
112. Cashman 1988, p. 526
113. Lentin, Antony (March 1995). "Several Types of Ambiguity: Lloyd George at the Paris Peace Conference". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 6 (1): 223–251. doi:10.1080/09592299508405960. quoting pp 228, 229, 246.
114. McIvor & Johnston 2007, p. 74
115. Thorpe 2014, p. 51
116. Thomas & Smith 2008, p. 13-14
117. Thane, Pat (1996). "The First World War and After". Foundations of the Welfare State (2 ed.). Routledge. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-582-27952-0.
118. Taylor, A. J. P. (2000). "Post-War, 1918–22". England 1914–1945. London: The Folio Society. p. 128.
119. Lowe 1984
120. Thane, Pat (1996). "The First World War and After". Foundations of the Welfare State Davies, John (1994). "1914-1919: The Somme, Brynmawr and Penyberth". A History of Wales. Penguin Books. p. 510. ISBN 978-0-14-014581-6.
122. Charles Loch Mowat, Britain between the wars: 1918–1940 (1955) pp 45–46.
123. Taylor 1988
124. Pugh, Martin (1988). "The Failure of the Centre Party 1918-1922". Lloyd George. Profiles in Power. London and New York: Longman. p. 139. ISBN 0582552680.
125. "Coal still uniting the community". bbc.co.uk. 11 December 2008. Retrieved 10 February 2016.
126. Thorpe 2014, p. 54
127. Mowat 1955, p. 127
128. Byrne & Padfield 1980, p. 204
129. "From 1917 to 2017: NB magazine's 100 years of eye health and sight loss". RNIB. 31 March 2017. Retrieved 11 September 2019.
130. Pugh, Martin (1988). "The Government of National Efficiency 1916-1918". Lloyd George. Profiles in Power. London and New York: Longman. p. 119. ISBN 0582552680.
131. Pugh, Martin (1988). "The Failure of the Centre Party 1918-1922". Lloyd George. Profiles in Power. London and New York: Longman. pp. 142–143. ISBN 0582552680.
132. Hattersley, Roy (2010). "The Perils of Peace". David Lloyd George: The Great Outsider. London: Little, Brown. p. 529. ISBN 9781408700976.
133. Jeffrey M. Shaw; Timothy J. Demy (2017). War and Religion: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict. ABC-CLIO. pp. 250–51 vol 1. ISBN 9781610695176.
134. McGarry 2010, pp. 262–263
135. Joseph P. Finnan (2004). John Redmond and Irish Unity: 1912 – 1918. Syracuse UP. pp. 1–3. ISBN 9780815630432.
136. Wrigley, Chris (1992). "A Fit World and a Fit Land to Live in?". Lloyd George. Historical Association Studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. p. 106. ISBN 0631166084.
137. Paul W. Doerr (1998). British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939. Manchester UP. pp. 55–61. ISBN 9780719046728.
138. Sally Marks, The Illusion of Peace: International Relations in Europe, 1918–1933 (2nd ed. 2003) pp 32–33.
139. Carl-Ludwig Holtfrerich, The German Inflation 1914–1923: Causes and Effects in International Perspective(Walter de Gruyter, 2013) p. 298.
140. Marks, The Illusion of Peace, pp 52–54.
141. Crosby 2014, pp. 276, 278–279, 474
142. Marks, The Illusion of Peace, p 45.
143. Morgan, Kenneth O. (1979). "The Downfall of the Coalition: Foreign Policy". Consensus and Disunity: The Lloyd George Coalition Government 1918-1922. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 302–330. ISBN 0198224974.
144. Crosby, Travis L. (2014). "To Straighten Ragged Edges". The Unknown David Lloyd George: A Statesman in Conflict. London: I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-78076-485-6.
145. Morgan, Kenneth O. (1979). "The Downfall of the Coalition: Party Politics". Consensus and Disunity: The Lloyd George Coalition Government 1918-1922. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 331–356. ISBN 0198224974.
146. Robert Boyce (2009). The Great Interwar Crisis and the Collapse of Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 125. ISBN 9780230280762.
147. Ramsden 1998, p. 244
148. Rowland, Peter (1975). "The Man at the Top, 1918-1922". Lloyd George. London: Barrie & Jenkins Ltd. p. 584. ISBN 0214200493.
149. Campbell, John (1977). "Introduction". Lloyd George: The Goat in the Wilderness 1922–1931. London: Jonathan Cape. pp. 3–11. ISBN 0224012967.
150. Koss 1985, pp. 259–61
151. "Measuring Worth – Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage". http://www.measuringworth.com. Archived from the original on 31 March 2016. Retrieved 30 October2016.
152. Campbell, John (1977). "The Aftermath of Coalition 1922-3". Lloyd George: The Goat in the Wilderness 1922–1931. London: Jonathan Cape. pp. 47–48. ISBN 0224012967.
153. Koss 1985, pp. 261–3
154. Rowland, Peter (1975). "Genuinely Seeking Work, 1922-1929". Lloyd George. London: Barrie & Jenkins. ISBN 0214200493.
155. Charmley 1995, pp. 201
156. Koss 1985, pp. 272
157. Koss 1985, pp. 267, 272–4
158. Jenkins 1964, pp. 513–4
159. Koss 1985, pp. 276–80
160. Jenkins 1964, pp. 514–6
161. Lucy Masterman, C. F. G. Masterman (Nicholson and Watson, 1939), pp. 345–346.
162. Jones, Thomas (1951). "In Opposition 1923–45". Lloyd George. London: Oxford University Press. pp. 223–224.
163. "Our Former Presidents: London Welsh Centre". London Welsh Centre website. London Welsh Centre. Archived from the original on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 4 February 2011.
164. Lloyd George, David (1935). Organizing Prosperity: A Scheme of National Reconstruction. London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson.
165. Jones 1951, pp. 238–239
166. Morgan, Kenneth O. (September 1996). "Lloyd George and Germany". The Historical Journal. Cambridge University Press. 39 (3): 755–766. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00024547. JSTOR 2639970.
167. Rudman 2011, ch 5–8
168. "Lloyd George and Hitler". Cymdeithas Lloyd George - Lloyd George Society. 17 April 2008. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
169. EERSTE TIEN JAAR GEEN OORLOG. Verklaringen van Lloyd George. (Dutch), Alkmaarsche Courant, 9 August 1934, p.6
170. Jones 1951, p. 247
171. Jones 1951, p. 248
172. Stella Rudman (2011). Lloyd George and the Appeasement of Germany, 1919–1945. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 233–35. ISBN 9781443827508.
173. Cross 1975, p. 281
174. Reynolds 2006, p. 79
175. Addison 1994, pp. 224–225
176. Rintala, Marvin (Summer 1985). "Renamed Roses: Lloyd George, Churchill, and the House of Lords". Biography. University of Hawai'i Press. 8 (3): 248–264. doi:10.1353/bio.2010.0448. JSTOR 23539091.
177. Wrigley, Chris (1992). "Lloyd George and the Liberal Party". Lloyd George. Historical Association Studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. p. 146. ISBN 0631166084.
178. "David Lloyd George remembered". Wales. 17 January 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2018.
179. "Clough Williams-Ellis on Lloyd-George's memorial". BBC Two. 5 April 2012. Retrieved 10 September 2019.
180. Pugh 2009, p. 585
181. Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1992). "Preface". Lloyd George: A Political Life: Organizer of Victory 1912–1916. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. p. 14. ISBN 0713457279.
182. Grigg, John (2003). "Lloyd George's Boswell". Lloyd George: War Leader 1916–1918. Penguin Books. pp. 220–221. ISBN 0140284273.
183. Shepherd, John (2007). "Book Review: Lloyd George and Churchill: rivals for greatness". History Today. London. 57 (6): 65–66. ISSN 0018-2753.
184. Longford, Ruth (1996). "A Greater Freedom". Frances, Countess Lloyd George: More than a Mistress. Gracewing. ISBN 0852443242.
185. Longford, Jennifer (10 July 2007). "Memories of David Lloyd George". lloydgeorgesociety.org.uk. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
186. Hague, Ffion (2008). "New Loves". The Pain and the Privilege: The Women in Lloyd George's Life. London: Harper Press. p. 461. ISBN 9780007219490.
187. Longford, Ruth (1996). "A War on several fronts". Frances, Countess Lloyd George: More than a Mistress. Gracewing. ISBN 0852443242.
188. "Dan Snow: History boy – Profiles – People – The Independent". The Independent. 26 July 2008. Retrieved 2 September 2014.
189. "Next generation takes charge". Financial Times. London. 25 April 2007.
190. "Lloyd George of Dwyfor, 1st Earl, David Lloyd George". Who's Who. ukwhoswho.com. 1920–2016 (April 2014 online ed.). A & C Black, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing plc. Retrieved 10 September2019. (subscription or UK public library membershiprequired)
191. "Estonian State Decorations". president.ee. Retrieved 22 January 2011.
192. "Blackpool Council – Mayor – General Information – Honorary Freemen". Blackpool.gov.uk. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
193. https://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/Your-Cou ... ts/freedom roll list June 2014.pdf
194. Akrigg & Akrigg 1997, p. 155
195. "2017 Top10 Watch List David Lloyd George Elementary School". Heritage Vancouver. 2017. Retrieved 3 July 2019.

Bibliography

Biographical

• Lord Beaverbrook (1963), The Decline and Fall of Lloyd George, Collins
• Cassar, George (2009), Lloyd George at War, 1916–1918, ISBN 978-1843317937
• Charmley, John (1995) [1993], Churchill: The End of Glory, Sceptre, ISBN 978-0340599228
• Cregier, Don M. (1976), Bounder from Wales: Lloyd George's Career Before the First World War, Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, ISBN 0-8262-0203-9
• Crosby, Travis. L. (2014), The Unknown David Lloyd George: A Statesman in Conflict, London: IB Tauris and Co. Ltd, ISBN 978-1-78076-485-6, retrieved 23 August 2014
• Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1987), David Lloyd George: A Political Life: The Architect of Change 1863–1912
• Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (1992), David Lloyd George: A Political Life: Organizer of Victory, 1912–1916
• Grigg, John (2002) [first published 1973–2002], Lloyd George, 4 vols. all volumes reprinted in 2002
o The Young Lloyd George (1973); Lloyd George: The People's Champion, 1902–1911 (1978); Lloyd George: From Peace to War, 1912–1916 (1985); Lloyd George: War Leader, 1916–1918 (2002)
• Hattersley, Roy (2010), David Lloyd George: The Great Outsider, Little Brown
• Jones, Thomas (1951), Lloyd George, Harvard University Press
• Morgan, Kenneth O. "George, David Lloyd, first Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/34570. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
• Owen, Frank (1954), Tempestuous Journey: Lloyd George, His Life and Times, London: Hutchinson
• Price, Emyr (2006), David Lloyd George, Celtic Radicals, Cardiff: University of Wales Press, ISBN 0708319475
• Pugh, Martin (2009), Cannon, John (ed.), Lloyd George, David, 1st Earl Lloyd-George in The Oxford Companion to British History (1st Revised ed.), Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199567638.001.0001, ISBN 978-0-19-956763-8, retrieved 9 February 2016
• Purcell, Hugh (2006), Lloyd George, The 20 British Prime Ministers of the 20th Century, London: Haus Publishing, ISBN 1904950582
• Rowland, Peter (1975), Lloyd George, London: Barrie & Jenkins, ISBN 0214200493
• Taylor, A. J. P. (1961), Lloyd George: rise and fall
• Taylor, A. J. P., ed. (1971), Lloyd George: Twelve Essays, London: Hamish Hamilton, ISBN 0241019052

Specialised studies

• Adams, R. J. Q. (1978), Arms and the Wizard: Lloyd George and the Ministry of Munitions, London: Cassell & Co Ltd, ISBN 0304299162
• Adams, R. J. Q. (1997), "Andrew Bonar Law and the Fall of the Asquith Coalition: the December 1916 Cabinet Crisis", Canadian Journal of History, 32 (2): 185–200, doi:10.3138/cjh.32.2.185, ISSN 0008-4107
• Adams, R. J. Q. (1975), "Delivering the Goods: Reappraising the Ministry of Munitions: 1915–1916", Albion, 7 (3): 232–244, doi:10.2307/4048178, JSTOR 4048178
• Adams, W.S. (February 1953), "Lloyd George and the Labour Movement", Past and Present, 3 (1): 55–64, doi:10.1093/past/3.1.55, JSTOR 650036
• Addison, Paul (1994), The Road to 1945. British Politics and the Second World War, London: Pimlico
• Akrigg, G. P. V.; Akrigg, Helen B. (1997), British Columbia Place Names, UBC Press, ISBN 978-0-7748-0637-4, retrieved 21 October 2012
• Bennett, G. H. (December 1999), "Lloyd George, Curzon and the Control of British Foreign Policy 1919–22", The Australian Journal of Politics and History, 45 (4): 467–482, doi:10.1111/1467-8497.00076
• Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, 1949, Burke's Peerage Ltd., 1949
• Byrne, Tony; Padfield, Colin F (1980), Social Services Made Simple, Made Simple Books, ISBN 0-434-90076-1
• Campbell, John (1977), Lloyd George, The Goat in the Wilderness, 1922–31, ISBN 0-224-01296-7
• Cashman, Sean (1988), America in the Age of the Titans: The Progressive Era and World War I, New York University Press, ISBN 978-0-8147-1411-9
• Corrigan, Gordon (10 July 2003), Mud, Blood and Poppycock, Cassell, ISBN 978-0-304-35955-4
• Davies, John (1994), A History of Wales, Penguin Books, ISBN 978-0-14-014581-6
• Davies, Norman (1971), "Lloyd George and Poland 1919–1920", Journal of Contemporary History, 6 (3): 132–154, doi:10.1177/002200947100600309, JSTOR 259884
• Egerton, George W. (March 1988), "The Lloyd George 'War Memoirs': A Study in the Politics of Memory", The Journal of Modern History, 60 (1): 55–94, doi:10.1086/243335, JSTOR 1880406
• Ehrman, John (1961), "Lloyd George and Churchill as War Ministers", Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 11 (5th Ser): 101–115, doi:10.2307/3678753, JSTOR 3678753
• Fair, John D. (September 1977), "Politicians, Historians, and the War: A Reassessment of the Political Crisis of December 1916", The Journal of Modern History, 49 (3, On Demand Supplement): D1329–D1343, doi:10.1086/241657, JSTOR 1876750
• Fraser, Peter (1982), "The British 'Shells Scandal' of 1915", Canadian Journal of History, 18 (1): 69–86, doi:10.3138/cjh.18.1.69
• French, David (1995), The Strategy of the Lloyd George Coalition, 1916–1918, Oxford U.P., ISBN 978-0-19-820559-3
• Fry, Michael (September 1988), "Political Change in Britain, August 1914 to December 1916: Lloyd George Replaces Asquith: The Issues Underlying the Drama", The Historical Journal, 31 (3): 609–627, doi:10.1017/s0018246x00023517, JSTOR 2639759
• Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (March 1978), "David Lloyd George: The Reform of British Landholding and the Budget of 1914", The Historical Journal, 21 (1): 117–141, doi:10.1017/s0018246x00000388, JSTOR 2638451
• Gilbert, Bentley Brinkerhoff (December 1976), "David Lloyd George: Land, The Budget, and Social Reform", The American Historical Review, 81 (5): 1058–1066, doi:10.2307/1852870, JSTOR 1852870
• Gooch, John (1968), "The Maurice Debate 1918", Journal of Contemporary History, 3 (4): 211–228, doi:10.1177/002200946800300413, JSTOR 259859
• Grey, Viscount (1925), Twenty-Five Years 1892–1916, London
• Hankey, Lord (1961), The Supreme Command, 1914–1918, 2 vols.
• Harnden, Toby (27 October 2011), Dead Men Risen: The Welsh Guards and the Real Story of Britain's War in Afghanistan, Quercus, ISBN 978-1-84916-423-8
• Hart, Peter (2008), 1918: A Very British Victory, London: Phoenix Books, ISBN 978-0-7538-2689-8
• Havighurst, Alfred F. (1966), Twentieth-Century Britain
• Havighurst, Alfred F. (1985), Britain in Transition: The Twentieth Century, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-31970-4, retrieved 10 February 2016
• Hazlehurst, Cameron (July 1970), "Asquith as Prime Minister, 1908–1916", The English Historical Review, 85 (336): 502–531, doi:10.1093/ehr/lxxxv.336.502, JSTOR 563193
• Jeffery, Keith (2006), Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson: A Political Soldier, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-820358-2
• Jenkins, Roy (1964), Asquith (first ed.), London: Collins, OCLC 243906913
• Jenkins, Roy (1998), The Chancellors, Macmillan, ISBN 0333730577
• Jones, J Graham. (2007), "Lloyd George", Dictionary of Liberal Thought, London: Brack & Randall
• Kelly's Handbook of the Titled, Landed and Official Classes, 1945, Kelly's Directories Ltd., 1945, p. 1185
• Kernek, Sterling J. (1975), "Distractions of Peace during War: The Lloyd George Government's Reactions to Woodrow Wilson, December, 1916-November, 1918", Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 65 (2): 1–117, doi:10.2307/1006183, JSTOR 1006183
• Keynes, John Maynard (1920). The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Harcourt, Brace and Howe. Economic Consequences of the Peace.
• Koss, Stephen (1985), Asquith, London: Hamish Hamilton, ISBN 978-0-231-06155-1
• Lentin, Antony (2004), Lloyd George and the Lost Peace: From Versailles to Hitler, 1919–1940
• Lentin, Antony (December 2004), "Maynard Keynes and the 'Bamboozlement' of Woodrow Wilson: What Really Happened at Paris?", Diplomacy & Statecraft, 15 (4): 725–763, doi:10.1080/09592290490886829 – via EBSCO
• Lentin, Antony (March 1995). "Several Types of Ambiguity: Lloyd George at the Paris Peace Conference". Diplomacy & Statecraft. Frank Cass. 6 (1): 223–251. doi:10.1080/09592299508405960.
• Longford, Ruth (1996), Frances, Countess Lloyd George: more than a mistress, Gracewing Publishing
• Lowe, Norman (1984), Mastering Modern World History, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 978-0-312-52102-8
• McIvor, Arthur; Johnston, Ronald (2007), Miners' Lung: A History of Dust Disease in British Coal Mining, Ashgate, ISBN 978-0-7546-3673-1
• McKinstry, Leo (23 May 2005), Rosebery: Statesman in Turmoil, John Murray, ISBN 978-0-7195-5879-5
• MacMillan, Margaret (2001), Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War, John Murray, ISBN 978-0-7195-5939-6
• McGarry, Fearghal (2010), The Rising: Easter 1916, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-150109-8
• Marriott, J. A. R. Modern England 1885-1945 A History Of My Own Times (1948) pp 390–516. online
• Millman, Brock (2001), "A Counsel of Despair: British Strategy and War Aims, 1917–18", Journal of Contemporary History, 36 (2): 241–270, doi:10.1177/002200940103600201, ISSN 0022-0094, JSTOR 261225
• Millman, Brock (Winter 2002), "The Lloyd George War Government, 1917–18", Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 3 (3): 99–127, doi:10.1080/714005491
• Morgan, Kenneth O. (1974), Lloyd George
• Morgan, Kenneth O. (March 1970), "Lloyd George's Premiership: A Study in 'Prime Ministerial Government", The Historical Journal, 13 (1): 130–157, doi:10.1017/S0018246X00009122, JSTOR 2637826
• Morgan, Kenneth O (1996), "Lloyd George and Germany", The Historical Journal, 39 (3): 755–766, doi:10.1017/s0018246x00024547, JSTOR 2639970
• Mowat, C. L. (1955), Britain Between The Wars 1918–1940, Methuen
• Murray, Bruce K. (September 1973), "The Politics of the 'People's Budget'", The Historical Journal, 16 (3): 555–570, doi:10.1017/s0018246x00002946, JSTOR 2638204
• Murray, Bruce K. (1980), The People's Budget, 1909/10: Lloyd George and Liberal politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 0198226268
• Owen, David (2014), The Hidden Perspective: The Military Conversations 1906–1914, London
• Powell, David (2004), British Politics, 1910–1935: The Crisis of the Party System
• Ramsden, John (5 October 1998), An Appetite for Power: A New History of the Conservative Party, HarperCollins, ISBN 978-0-00-255686-6
• Reynolds, David (2006), From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s, Oxford University Press
• Rose, Inbal A. (1999), Conservatism and Foreign Policy During the Lloyd George Coalition 1918–1922, Frank Cass & Co. Ltd., ISBN 0-7146-4486-2, retrieved 10 February 2016
• Rudman, Stella (2011), Lloyd George and the Appeasement of Germany, 1919–1945, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, ISBN 978-1-4438-2657-0
• Taylor, A. J. P. (1976) [First published 1965 as volume fifteen of The Oxford History of England.], English History 1914–1945, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-19-821715-2
• Taylor, W. D. (4 August 1988), Mastering Economic and Social History, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-333-36804-6
• Thane, Pat (22 November 1996), Foundations of the Welfare State, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-582-27952-0
• Timmins, Nicholas (2001), The Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State, ISBN 978-0-00-710264-8
• Thomas, Nigel; Smith, Andy (5 December 2008), Disability, sport, and society: an introduction, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-37819-2
• Thorpe, Andrew (19 September 2014), The Longman Companion to Britain in the Era of the Two World Wars 1914–45, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-317-89747-7
• Turner, John (31 January 1992), British Politics and the Great War: Coalition and Conflict, 1915–1918, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-05046-2
• Ward, Alan J. (1974), "Lloyd George and the 1918 Irish Conscription Crisis", The Historical Journal, 17 (1): 107–129, doi:10.1017/s0018246x00005689, JSTOR 2638335
• Watts, Duncan (2002), Whigs, Radicals and Liberals, 1815–1914, Hodder & Stoughton, ISBN 978-0-340-80206-9
• Wilson, Trevor (1964), "The Coupon and the British General Election of 1918", Journal of Modern History, 36 (1): 28–42, doi:10.1086/239234, JSTOR 1874424
• Wilson, Trevor (1966), The Downfall of the Liberal Party 1914–1935, Collins
• Woodward, David R. (1998), Field Marshal Sir William Robertson: Chief of the Imperial General Staff in the Great War, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, ISBN 0-275-95422-6
• Woodward, David R. (1983), Lloyd George and the Generals, Newark, London, and Toronto: University of Delaware Press and Associated University Presses, ISBN 0874132118
• Woodward, Sir Llewellyn (1967), Great Britain and the War of 1914–1918
• Wrigley, Chris (1976), David Lloyd George and the British Labour Movement: Peace and War, Hassocks and New York: The Harvester Press and Barnes and Noble Books, ISBN 0855272546
• Wrigley, Chris (1990). Lloyd George and the Challenge of Labour: The Post-War Coalition 19118-1922. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. ISBN 0710810237.

Primary sources

• A. J. Sylvester (1975), Cross, Colin (ed.), Life with Lloyd George: The Diary of A. J. Sylvester, London: Macmillan, ISBN 0333149076
• Jones, J. Graham (2001), Lloyd George Papers at the National Library of Wales and Other Repositories, Aberystwyth: Welsh Political Archive, National Library of Wales, ISBN 1862250235
• Lloyd George, David (1938), The Truth About the Peace Treaties, 1, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd
• Lloyd George, David (1938), The Truth About the Peace Treaties, 2, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd
• Lloyd George, David (1938), War Memoirs Of David Lloyd George: Volume 1 (New ed.), Odhams Press
• Lloyd George, David (1918), The Great Crusade: Extracts from Speeches Delivered During the War
• David Lloyd George (1973), Kenneth O. Morgan (ed.), Lloyd George Family Letters, 1885–1936, Cardiff and London: University of Wales Press and Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192117173
• Lord Riddell. Lord Riddell's Intimate Diary of the Peace Conference And After (1933) online free
• David Lloyd George; Frances Stevenson (1975), Taylor, A. J. P. (ed.), My Darling Pussy: The Letters of Lloyd George and Frances Stevenson, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0297770179
• Frances Stevenson (1971), Taylor, A. J. P. (ed.), Lloyd George: A Diary by Frances Stevenson, Hutchinson, ISBN 0091072700

Further reading

• Brack, Duncan, Robert Ingham, and Tony Little, eds. British Liberal Leaders (Biteback Publishing, 2015).
• Cregier, Don M. (May 1970), "The Murder of the British Liberal Party", The History Teacher, 3 (4): 27–36, doi:10.2307/3054322, JSTOR 3054322
• Dangerfield, George. The Strange Death of Liberal England (1935) online free;
• Fry, Michael G. (1977), Lloyd George and Foreign Policy., Vol. 1: The Education of a Statesman: 1890–1916, Montreal and London: McGill-Queen's University Press, ISBN 0773502742
• Johnson, Matthew (June 2008), "The Liberal War Committee and the Liberal Advocacy of Conscription in Britain, 1914–1916", The Historical Journal, 51 (2): 399–420, doi:10.1017/s0018246x08006766, JSTOR 20175167
• Morgan, Kenneth O. (1979). Consensus and Disunity: The Lloyd Coalition Government 1918 - 1922. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198224974.
• Searle, G. R. (2004), A New England? Peace and war, 1886–1918, Oxford University Press
• Somervell, D. C. The Reign of King George V, (1936) pp 161–306. online free
• Suttie, Andrew (2006), Rewriting the First World War: Lloyd George, Politics & Strategy, 1914–1918
• Toye, Richard (2007). Lloyd George & Churchill: Rivals for Greatness. London: Macmillan. ISBN 9781405048965.
• Wilson, Trevor (1989), The Myriad Faces of War: Britain and the Great War 1914–1918, ISBN 0745606458

External links

• Media from Wikimedia Commons
• Quotations from Wikiquote
• Texts from Wikisource
• Hansard 1803–2005: contributions in Parliament by David Lloyd George
• More about David Lloyd George on the Downing Street website.
• Lloyd George Society website
• BBC Wales History – Profile of David Lloyd George
• http://www.notableabodes.com
• David Lloyd George Exhibition, National Library of Wales
• Portraits of David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George at the National Portrait Gallery, London
• "Archival material relating to David Lloyd George". UK National Archives.
• Newspaper clippings about David Lloyd George in the 20th Century Press Archives of the ZBW
• Works by David Lloyd George at Project Gutenberg
• Works by David Lloyd George at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

The Rise and Fall of the Parliament of Religions at Greenacre
by Robert P. Richardson
The Open Court
A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Science of Religion, the Religion of Science, and the Extension of the Religious Parliament Idea
Copyright by Open Court Publishing Company 1931
Volume XLVI (No. 3), Number 898
March, 1931


Joseph Jefferson, Sarah J. Farmer, Swami Abhedananda (The Camp at Green Acre)

ON THE THIRD day of July, 1894, there gathered in the little town of Eliot, Maine, a group of men and women resolved to form a center where might be continued each summer the work so auspiciously begun at [url=x]the Chicago Columbian Exposition in 1893,[/url] when thinkers of the most opposite schools had freely expressed their views on religion, ethics, philosophy and sociology, and had amicably listened to the other side of each question. In the call for the Chicago Congresses their purposes had been stated as to "review the progress already achieved in the world, state the living problems now awaiting solution, and suggest the means of farther progress." Quoting this and reaffirming it as the purpose of the summer meetings at Eliot, the program of the first season promised "a series of lectures and courses on topics which shall quicken and energize the spiritual, mental and moral natures, and give the surest and serenest physical rest." It had been determined "to form a center at the Greenacre Inn where thinking men and women, reaching out to help their fellows through means tried and untried, might find an audience recognizing not alone revealed truth, but truth in the process of revelation. It was believed that for those of different faiths, different nationalities, different training, the points of contact might be found, the great underlying principles — the oneness of truth, the brotherhood of man; that to the individual this spot might mean the opening door to freedom, the tearing down of walls of prejudice and superstition."

This view from the Piscataqua River shows the Sarah Farmer Inn atop the hill on the Green Acre property. At the time this photograph was taken, the Inn was called the Eliot Hotel and acted as a resort for summer guests. It was owned by Martin Tobey, George Hammond, Dr. John Willis, Francis Keefe and Sarah Farmer. John Greenleaf Whittier called the Hotel 'Green Acre' and Sarah Farmer, one of the Hotel owners, renamed the inn to be Green Acre Inn.

Eventually the Inn and surrounding properties became a center for spiritual thought, where speakers would come from all over the world to share religious and spiritual subjects with the guests and Eliot residents.

-- Green Acre Property, by Maine Memory Network

The place selected for this work had been well chosen. At a beautiful spot on a tidal estuary (the so-called Piscataqua "river") six miles from the sea, there had been built in 1890 the Greenacre Inn. Even in the beginning it was designed to accommodate people of the more cultured classes and persons with literary and artistic tastes. John Greenleaf Whittier had found there a pleasant refuge from the heats of the New England hinterland, declaring it to be ''the pleasantest place I was ever in." Whittier had brought with him the authoress "Grace Greenwood" (Mrs. Lippincott) and his cousin, Mrs. Gertrude Cartland who, clad in her simple but dignified garb of a Quakeress, had charmed all present by her impressive recitals from the mystical writings of Madame Guyon. Looking from the windows of the Inn the guests had sometimes seen Miss Olea Bull gracefully dancing the Norwegian "Spring Dance." Sometimes too she played, and one of the enthusiastic beholders wrote: "You will hear grand music from her. She is the only daughter of Ole Bull who played the violin as no other person ever did. I do not think you ever saw such willowy grace as there is in that child's every movement. She is wonderfully made."

The Greenacre Inn was thus well known to the intellectuals of New England who gave an enthusiastic reception to the announcement of the new Greenacre idea, and flocked to Eliot to take part in the meetings. Mrs. Ole Bull gave the opening address of the first season, and Miss Sarah J. Farmer acted as secretary of the conferences. Among the speakers of that summer are to be noted the names of Edward Everett Hale, [url=x]Swami Vivekananda[/url], Lewis G. Janes, Ralph Waldo Trine, B. O. Flower of The Arena, Neal Dow and a host of others, fifty or sixty speakers in all being listed. The subjects discussed included Universal Religion, Prophets and Prophecy, [url=x]The Theosophical Movement[/url], The Religion of India, Is Spiritualism Worth While if True? The Relation of Religion to Art, Evolution and Life, The Possibilities of Woman, Motherhood, Mental Freedom, The Education of the Future, [url=x]Immanuel Kant[/url], Individualism and Socialism, and Economic Natural Law.

Among the celebrities visiting Greenacre in the next few years and contributing to the programs were William Lloyd Garrison, Walter H. Page, Clarence Darrow, Lilian Whiting, Alice B. Stockham. B. Fay Mills, Orison Swett Marden, Elbert Hubbard, George D. Herron, Bolton Hall, Percival Chubb, W. M. Salter, Alfred W. Martin, Judge W. C. Robinson (Dean of the Catholic University of America), Prof. Joseph Le Conte, J. H. Hyslop, Lester A. Ward, John Fiske, C. H. A. Bjerregaard of the New York Astor Library, W. T. Harris (U. S. Commissioner of Education), Carroll D. Wright (U. S. Commissioner of Labor) and [url=x]Annie Besant[/url]. Theodore T. Wright, Secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund, lectured on Recent Explorations confirming and interpreting the Bible. John Burroughs gave a Talk on Nature. J. T. Trowbridge, Edwin Markham and Sam E. Foss gave readings from their works, W. D. Howells came and read his Traveller from Altruria, and the famous actor Joseph Jefferson (who became a charter member of the Green Acre Fellowship when this was formed in 1902) regaled the Greenacreites every summer under the pines with informal talks on the drama. Some practical talks on art were given by painters and sculptors not unknown to fame (e.g. Arthur W. Dow of Ipswich and F. Edwin Elwell of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art) and musical instruction was available for those who cared to take it. A number of musicians and singers of the first rank likewise found their way to Eliot and freely gave their aid in enlivening the Greenacre proceedings with song and music. Geraldine Farrar was at Greenacre as a girl, and even then a great future was predicted for the youthful singer. The story is told that on one occasion, when she consented to entertain Greenacre with her singing, she uttered a very long drawn out note, and just as she was about to terminate it the whistle of a distant locomotive prolonged the sound for some live minutes. Whereupon the waggish Joseph Jefferson said in a loud aside that brought down the house: "My! What a voice that girl has!"[1]

Noteworthy was the Evolution Conference of 1895 organized by Lewis G. Janes. The proceedings were opened with an address by Dr. E. D. Cope of the University of Pennsylvania on Present Problems of Organic Evolution, and in the second meeting there was read a paper on Social Evolution and Social Duty contributed by Herbert Spencer to this Greenacre conference, though originally prepared in view of being read at the Chicago Congress of Religions of 1893. Two sessions of the conference were held daily. Papers were read on such subjects as Social Ideals tested by Evolutionary Principles, Natural Selection and Crime, and The Evolution of the God-Idea, the conference being finally closed with two addresses by John Fiske.

The first week of the Summer Congress at Greenacre, on the Piscataqua, was devoted to the Conference of Evolutionists which held its first meeting on July 6th, under the direction of Dr. Lewis G. Janes, President of the Brooklyn Ethical Association. The program was as follows:

Saturday, July 6th - Evolution Conference under the direction of Dr. Lewis G. Janes, President of the Ethical Association; S.P.M., Professor Edward D. Cope, Ph.D., of the University of Pennsylvania, 'The President Problems of Organic Evolution'; S.P.M., paper from Herbert Spencer, of London, Eng., 'Social Evolution and Social Duty,' to be followed by a symposium and brief addresses.

Monday, July 8 - 3 P.M., Mr. Henry Wood, of Boston, Mass., 'Industrial Evolution'; S.P.M., Mr. Benjamin F. Underwood, Editor Philosophical Journal, Chicago, Ill., 'How Evolution Reconciles Opposing Views of Ethics and Philosophy'; letters and brief addresses.

Tuesday, July 9 - 3 P.M., Professor Edward S. Morse, of the Peabody Institute, Salem, Mass., 'Natural Section and Crime'; S.P.M., Dr. Martin L. Holbrook, editor Journal of Hygiene, New York, 'Evolution's Hopeful Promise for Human Health.'

Wednesday, July 10 - 3 P.M., Rev. Edward P. Powell, of Clinton, N.Y., 'Evolution of Individuality'; S.P.M., Miss Mary Proctor, of New York, 'Other Worlds Than Ours,' with stereopticon Illustrations.

Thursday, July 11 - 3 P.M., Rev. James T. Bixby, Ph.D. of Yonkers, N.Y., 'Evolution of the God-Idea'; S.P.M., Dr. Lewis G. Janes, President Brooklyn Ethical Association, 'Evolution of Morals.'

The Congress will be continued during the months of July and August, a lecture being delivered on each afternoon and occasionally one also in the evening. The last lecture will be delivered on August 31st, by Hon. Carroll D. Wright.

-- Science, A Weekly Journal Devoted to the Advancement of Science, Volume II - July to December, 1895, edited by John Michels (Journalist)

This conference led in the following season to the organization of the School of Comparative Religion which, under the supervision of Dr. Janes, functioned each summer at Greenacre from 1893 on, the meetings being usually held in the open air under the pines. Thoroughly in sympathy with the Religious Parliament idea, Dr. Janes was exceptionally well fitted to put on a scientific and systematic basis the work in this line which had hitherto been carried on at Greenacre in a somewhat desultory way. One of the early contributors to The Open Court, he was prominent in the Ethical Culture movement and in the Free Religious Association, and had been President of the Brooklyn Ethical Association for eleven years. Remarkable for the breadth of his intellectual and religious sympathies, he knew how to insure a cordial welcome to the representative of every shade of opinion, and to make each speaker feel that the atmosphere of his audience was receptive and sympathetic. Dr. Janes brought to Greenacre, among others, the Vedantist Swamis Saradananda and Abhedananda, the Buddhist [url=x]Anagarika H. Dharmapala[/url], the Jain Virchand R. Gandhi, Rabbi Joseph Krauskopf, and, above all, Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt of Cornell University, who for many years was the chief standby of the scholarly and scientific element of the Greenacreites. [url=x]Dr. Carus[/url] came to Greenacre for a short time in August 1897 and lectured on Religion in Science and Philosophy. The report of the conferences notes that he "was greeted with great cordiality and found here many friends who read and appreciate his writings." He also "had a few conferences informally in which he discussed the problem of the Ego and the philosophy of Lao-tze." Dr. Carus was hailed at Greenacre as "the representative of sober criticism and exact science" and although "he did not countenance the various aberrations of occultism" in vogue among the more erratic and emotional of the Greenacreites, it is recorded that his "criticism is not offensive; he confines himself to a sober exposition of his own views, and when he is requested to speak his word on the various mystic tendencies he makes an occasional fling at others, but he does it with humor and is never sarcastic."

The Greenacre movement grew apace, and soon the Inn proved inadequate to lodge the attendants at the meetings who overflowed into the near-by farm houses. An array of sixty or seventy tents — Sunrise Camp— grew up on the banks of the Piscataqua, and people of prominence did not disdain their primitive accommodations. "The soil is very porous" wrote E. P. Powell in The Christian Register, "and absorbs water very speedily. You will lie in the tents, laughing at storms and never catching cold. One reason, I imagine, is that we have something else to think of, for colds have a certain dependence on spiritual and intellectual conditions. In the Inn you will see the Whittier Table; and if you are a lecturer, you will be permitted to sit in his chair." Near the Inn was erected a modest auditorium tent, holding three hundred people, but this proved too small, and it was soon necessary to provide another with double the capacity. Usually the program for the day began at 9 A. M. with unsectarian devotional exercises in the large tent, following which, in fair weather, the Greenacreites trooped off to the beautiful Lysekloster Pines (so named from the Norwegian home of Ole Bull) where they seated themselves on the soft carpet of pine needles and, drinking in the fragrance of the piney forest, listened to the morning lectures. Only on rainy days was a tent used for these morning meetings, but in the afternoon lectures were commonly given in the large tent, its sides being left wide open so that one could gaze across the river at the New Hampshire countryside and see in the distance the foothills of the White [Mountains. The tent served in the evenings, sometimes for lectures, sometimes for musical or dramatic entertainments. The latter purposes how-ever were better served by the "Eirenion" (Abode of Peace), a large wooden structure erected not far from the Inn in 1897. In 1896 the gratuitous services of an enthusiastic printer were enlisted, and there was published at Eliot, in the interests of the conferences, a weekly newspaper. The Greenacre Voice, this effort persevering for several seasons.

Side by side with the conferences on religion other activities went on. It is narrated that on one record-breaking day sixteen different meetings were held, the first being a Vedantist devotional exercise at 6 A. M. which was an addition to, not a substitute for the usual service at 9, and that a certain lady, trying to take in all that Greenacre had to offer on that occasion, lamented because she had been able to attend only nine! There were educational conferences, more evolution conferences, nature conferences and sociological conferences. Classes for teaching the New Thought practices were held by Horatio Dresser and his assistant. Miss Ellen M. Dyer, when weather permitted in the open air, these and the classes of Miss Mary H. Burnham's School of Music being the only functions at which payment of a fee was required of those taking part. "We all wander around as fancy leads us" said a lady "and if we see a group of people anywhere, just drop in. And the freedom and informality is a large part of the charm of Greenacre life." Each year a Peace Conference was held under the Greenacre flag which floated on a tall pole near the river, a white silken banner on which was inscribed in green letters the single word "Peace." In later years when factional quarrels were rife among the Greenacreites, some cynic suggested that this be described as "The flag we fight under," and there is told the story that once, when two ladies at a meeting in the Eirenion were so angry with each other as to all but come to blows, the custodian of the standard, Mr. Douglass, hastened to lower the Peace Flag as a sign that peace no longer reigned at Greenacre.

Once a year was celebrated Emerson Day in honor of the great Transcendentalist. The meetings were held in the Pines and presided over by Frank B. Sanborn, the last resident member of the Concord School of Philosophy and the friend and companion of Emerson and Thoreau. A favorite spot for this celebration was in front of a gigantic boulder known as The Mystic Rock (also called the Druid Stone) which sometimes served as a platform for the speakers of the day. One who was accustomed to be present described the occasion as follows: "We sit under the trees and listen to the tender intimate touches from Emerson's life and experiences. Then Charles Malloy gives a series of Emerson readings, with lines and interlines of interpretation, the wealth of a lifetime of study." There were group walks through the woods, made more profitable by talks on the birds and other forms of wild life which could be seen at times, for Eliot, though legally a town, only two short hours' ride from Boston and but three miles from the city of Portsmouth, is really a slice of the country, there being no large aggregation of houses but rather a scattering of homesteads, some quite small but others covering many acres, interspersed with tracts of woodland several miles deep. In these woods could be found the camps of one or two Greenacreites who preferred the seclusion they afforded, notably Dharmapala, the Buddhist monk, and Ralph Waldo Trine, familiarly known at as "Judge Trine" on account of the judicial serenity of his countenance. It was in a willow-woven hut by the side of the Mystic Rock that Mr. Trine wrote his famous work: In Tune with the Infinite, and it is said that more than once when engaged in its composition he was interrupted by a curious cow who poked her head in the open doorway. Sometimes the early morning "Kneippers" would wind up their exercises with a call on Mr. Trine who, when not preoccupied with literary work, always gave them a hearty welcome and served them coffee, reputed to be the best in Greenacre.

It would be a great mistake to suppose that the majority of Greenacreites had any intention of keeping their noses to the grindstone and acquiring new knowledge by a severe course of mental discipline. The magnet that drew summer visitors to Eliot was the life that could be led there, the possibility seen, by people with tastes above that of the common herd, of mingling with their own kind. One could go to a lecture and, if not inclined to listen too attentively, gaze dreamily at the blue sky just showing through the green branches or look out on the broad expanse of the Piscataqua and become oblivious to everything else. After a lecture the Greenacreites would stroll through the woods and along the country lanes, and no introduction was necessary for the commencement of a conversation. This conversation might not go very deeply into the questions discussed at the conferences, but would be very much above the level of the conversation of the card party or the talk at the conventional dinner table. Social distinctions and the possession of a fortune or the lack of one played no part in the fellowship of the Greenacreites; the only thing that mattered was behaving decently and being interesting to talk with. Men and women of wealth were by no means unknown in the colony, but coming, as they almost invariably did, from a long line of more or less wealthy forbears, they never thought of flaunting their prosperity in the eyes of the less fortunate Greenacreites, but donned their old clothes and enjoyed the simple life like the rest. The nouveau riche were conspicuous by their absence, and women who at home had their full staffs of servants could here be seen clad in calico, picking blackberries along the country lanes to take back to their landladies as part of the evening repast. Greenacre was thus as different from the ordinary summer resort as day is from night, and even people who were not inclined to do much high thinking found to their taste the simple living, coupled with refinement and culture that was in vogue in Eliot.

We must not exaggerate the influence of the lecturers and conferences on the Greenacreites, and there is no doubt that the intellectual atmosphere of the place was far more potent than any formal course of instruction could be in spreading the spirit of the Parliament of Religions. No religious or philosophical or sociological sect was dominant, and a Greenacreite had necessarily to throw oft' the sectarian attitude and listen with respectful attention to doctrines which he could not possibly bring himself to accept. The customs and scruples of the religionists from foreign lands were courteously respected even when they seemed very far fetched to Occidental minds. To do this was sometimes far from easy. It is recorded that one lady invited the Jain, Gandhi, to a dinner which she had taken care to make vegetarian, hoping thus to suit his tastes. But "he would eat nothing save ice cream, and if he had known there were eggs in it he would not have eaten that. He taboos all vegetables grown under ground."

A Good Greenacreite would not even hesitate to take part in the ceremonies of alien faiths. One night the Buddhist monk, Dharmapala, who had astonished the natives of Eliot by going about clad in bright orange colored robes and equally gaudy yellow shoes, organized a pilgrimage to the Pines in which all Greenacre took part, to celebrate the festival of the Full ^loon. The Greenacreites gathered at nightfall, arrayed in white, each person carrying a bunch of flowers and a lighted candle-lantern. Headed by Dharmapala, who chanted in sing-song tones as he walked, the picturesque procession wended its way to the Pines where the posies were used to build an altar of flowers under a magnificent tree which had been named The Bodhi Pine in memory of the Tree of Wisdom under which tradition says the Gautama Buddha sat. By its side Dharmapala seated himself on the ground, cross-legged, in Buddha posture, while the Greenacreites, kept en rapport by a circlet of yellow cord which each held by one hand, grouped themselves around him endeavoring to adjust themselves to the same uncomfortable position. For several hours each gazed at his own candle on which he concentrated all his thoughts, and some of the pilgrims who had taken the matter so seriously as to follow Dharmapala's injunction to prepare for the occasion by a fast beginning at daybreak, and had let nothing but a few drops of water pass their lips all that day, were rewarded by imagining they saw the ghostly forms which they had been told might be made manifest to them. With a fine Catholicism the same men and women who participated in this Buddhist ceremony would lend their aid to the worship of the setting sun by the Parsee, Jehangier D. Cola, and stand by his side in respectful silence as he made obeisance to the glowing orb. Equal zest was shown in going through the ceremonies of the Midsummer Nature Worship, inaugurated by Mr. Bjerregaard. Such proceedings, though they made Greenacre more interesting to people of broad mentality, were quite incomprehensible to the good Congregationalists of Eliot, who began to show some aversion to the "pagan" summer visitors. The feelings of the towns' folk were also aroused by the practices of some Greenacreites who took mud baths, and walked about on the shores of the Piscataqua in garbs that at the beaches of to-day would be deemed ultra-modest bathing costumes. "Kneipping"' was another trial to the natives. Those were the days in which Father Kneipp gained a brief celebrity by advocating running barefooted in the dewy grass as the royal road to health, and the Eliot people often saw the summer visitors engaging in these unseemly antics as they were deemed. A contemporary account of Greenacre throws a vivid light on the attitude of Eliot people in 1897. "'This world is an amazin' queer place,' was confided to me by one of the farmers' wives" wrote Laura S. "McAdoo," 'and Greenacre is the queerest part of it. Why have you seen those droves of people that run through the fields in a kind of dogtrot early in the morning, They call that Kneipping. and they go to see the sun rise too" I'm sure I don't think that sunrise is such a sight, and I've seen it almost every day of my life. And they actually go worshipping the sun, and say heathen prayers when it goes down. I don't know what the world's coming to. when we have these foreigners over here dressed up in outlandish clothes preaching all sorts of strange doctrines, after we've been trying to convert them for hundreds of years. It's ridiculous" Why my little girl saw this new eastern man that wears purple and orange and I almost had to laugh at the young one. She said: Oh mamma" Here comes another devil" It must be Mr. Dharmapala's brother. Just look at that now' she continued, going to the window as the expounder of Parseeism passed by attired in the national costume of his race. 'What's he after now? I believe they dress so just to look queer.'" Doubtless the little Eliot girl who called the foreigners in queer costumes "devils" had shuddered at the tales she heard in church' of the heathen Chinese who call Americans and Europeans "foreign devils," but we may be quite sure that neither she nor her mother had any inkling of how near culturally they were to the ignorant Chinese they so despised.

In the boom year of 1897 everything seemed rosy at Greenacre. Visitors flocked from all parts of the country to attend the conferences and take part in the life they had heard was so enjoyable. The lectures at times drew audiences of over eight hundred people, who, not finding seats inside the tent where the meetings were being held, stood around outside listening to the proceedings. Funds flowed in freely and were used (rather recklessly, as it turned out) in putting up the Eirenion, erecting three cottages to shelter the more distinguished summer visitors (the Whittier, Hildegard and Duon cottages) and enlarging and improving the kitchen and dining room of the Inn — in lieu of paying the long over-due rent on the latter. Thinking that a prosperous future was assured to Greenacre, several of the town's people built annexes to their homesteads to house future flocks of summer visitors, and during the next two years had no difficulty in filling them. To the superficial view all was well with Greenacre. But the institution was booked for a decline, as it had no satisfactory financial basis. Admission to all the lectures and conferences was absolutely free, and although it was suggested that those who attended should make voluntary contributions according to their means, the response was never sufficient for the needs of Greenacre. The only other resource was the money received at the Inn and at Sunrise Camp, that paid by the summer visitors for board in other places in no way benefitting Greenacre. And as the capacity of the Inn was so limited — it having only thirty-five rooms — and as the prices charged at it and in the tents were exceedingly moderate, the profits in any event could not be large. Moreover the possible profits were reduced by the fact that the lecturers at Greenacre received as compensation, besides their traveling expenses, free board at the Inn for a more or less lengthy stay, and the excessive number of lecturers and other non-paying guests made the situation very difficult. Notwithstanding various substantial gifts that were made to Greenacre the financial situation became so bad that in 1900 the work was all but dropped. The School of Comparative Religion was suspended, and the only lecturers made use of that season were persons who had come to Eliot at their own expense and were paying the full charge for board at the Inn or elsewhere. The facts however were kept in the shade by calling this a "Sabbatical Year," the leading spirit in the Greenacre work, ]Miss Sarah Farmer, passing the summer abroad as the guest of a friend, Miss Alaria Wilson, a fervent devotee of the Bahai religion: the first Greenacreites to succumb to the fascinations of that offshoot of Mohammedanism.

In the spring of 1901 Miss Farmer gave no inkling of any intention of continuing the Greenacre work, and at the solicitation of those desirous of seeing it go on, including the lessee of the Greenacre Inn and the various persons in Eliot who eked out their budget by taking in summer boarders. Dr. Janes decided to take up anew the work of the School of Comparative Religion and conduct it on a sounder financial basis, charging a small fee to those who should attend the lectures. In previous years voluntary contributions had been made by those taking the course and others, amounting in 1899, the peak year of the school when 214 persons enrolled, to $375. It had been customary to divide the sum remaining, after paying incidental expenses, among the workers of the school, but in 1899, after defraying the travelling expenses of the workers, the balance was turned over to Greenacre, the lecturers at the school willingly foregoing that year even the meagre cash compensation that had been usual. Dr. Janes, under the new plan, set a fixed registration fee of two dollars, with an additional charge, if lecturers were attended for more than one week, of five dollars for the course, or fifty cents for each single lecture. On account of the summer visitors that it was known the reopened school would bring to Eliot, the Innkeeper and the boarding house proprietors expressed their willingness to be responsible for the board of Dr. Janes' modest staff of lecturers.

On hearing of the new departure Miss Farmer rose up in arms and resuming her activity managed to gather together enough money to carry on a Greenacre program during the season of 1901. She sponsored a course of lectures similar to those of Dr. Janes, conflicting with these as to time, and there were thus two rival Schools of Comparative Religion at Eliot that season. The only ostensible reasons Miss Farmer had for opposing Dr. Janes instead of co-operating with him were his "abandonment of the voluntary principle" (i. e. his requiring a minimum fee to be paid by all attendants at his course) and his "attempting to cut one of the branches of Greenacre from its parent stem" (in other words his daring to continue the work of the School of Comparative Religion without asking her permission and refusing to submit to her authority as paramount). Sarah Farmer, in fact, claimed proprietary rights in the Greenacre movement, and assumed that if she chose to abandon it no one else had any right to carry it forward. Now it is true that to her had first come the idea of using the Greenacre Inn as a center for lectures and conferences, and to her persuasive powers were due the consent of the proprietors of the Inn to try this experiment: an experiment conducted on so grandiose a scale as to spell disaster to the owners of the Inn who had not received a single cent in rental during the five years (1894-1898) in which Miss Farmer had control of the property. To her initiative also were due most of the arrangements for the lectures and conferences, and besides contributing money of her own to the work, she had induced a number of well-wishers to the cause to contribute liberally towards its support. She ought however have recognized that her fellow laborers had likewise given time and money freely, and that they could not be expected to stand idle and see the movement fall to the ground merely because Aliss Farmer seemed unwilling or unable to go on with it. Many of the original Greenacreites, heavy contributors to the movement, took the part of Dr. Janes, notably Mrs. Bull, whose contribution of one thousand dollars had made possible the purchase of the Lysekloster Pines.[2] Mrs. Ole Bull, nee Sara Chapman Thorp, had been prominent in the movement from the very beginning. She was accustomed to move in the literary and artistic world, as w'as her family, her brother, Air. Joseph G. Thorp, Jr., having married a daughter of Longfellow. She had undoubtedly rendered great service in getting Greenacre in touch with people of prominence besides aiding with her counsels the erratic and culturally somewhat undeveloped Miss Farmer. It was Mrs. Bull who, in the winter season at Boston, had sponsored and largely financed a work very similar to that of the Greenacre summer school: the "Cambridge Conferences" directed by Dr. Janes and held in the house of Mrs. Bull who intended these conferences to be "in some degree a memorial to her mother, Mrs. Thorp, a woman of unusual benevolence and energy." Mrs. Bull strove in vain to heal the breach between Miss Farmer and Dr. Janes. The latter carried his plans for a summer school at Eliot in 1901 to successful fruition, but died in September of the same year, and Miss Farmer, perhaps somewhat chastened by this temporary rivalry, continued to reign at Greenacre.

In the years subsequent to 1900 Miss Farmer managed to secure enough "free will offerings" to keep up the work, though Greenacre always lived from hand to mouth, the close of each season showing a deficit which had to be made up by fresh solicitation for funds. Andrew Carnegie, at one time, offered a yearly subvention of $250 with the stipulation that $750 more must be guaranteed, and a reasonably business-like accounting be given of subscriptions received and money paid out, but these conditions were never satisfactorily met. Mrs. Bull however continued to contribute liberally to Greenacre, and other heavy contributors were Edwin Ginn, the Boston publisher, Mr. and Mrs. George D. Ayers of "Ayers' Cherry Pectoral" fame, Frank Jones, the wealthy Portsmouth brewer, and Mrs. Phoebe Hearst, the mother of the originator of yellow journalism. It was the last who provided the funds, for purchase of the Inn property in 1902, title to which was put in the name of James C. Hooe of Washington, a life interest in the property being assured to Miss Farmer who henceforth had free use of the Inn subject to payment of taxes and insurance. Mrs. Hearst had shown some interest in the Bahai movement, but in arranging to have the Inn subserve the work at Greenacre, made no effort to change the latter into a sectarian institution. The like holds of Helen E. Cole who, on her death in 1906 left a substantial bequest to the Green Acre Fellowship. As to the other contributors mentioned above, none of them showed any particular sympathy for the Bahai cause.

During her trip abroad Miss Farmer had visited Acre, where she met Abdul Baha, the leader of the religious body known as Bahais, and on her return she announced herself a convert to this Persian cult. Whether or not her new-found faith had any influence in making Miss Farmer oppose the work of Dr. Janes is a moot question. But there can hardly be any doubt that she had found him too liberal, or, perhaps it would be better to say, too scientific and scholarly. Her own naive idea of the study of comparative religions is shown by the statement that appeared in her program of 1903: "The Monsalvat School for the Comparative Study of Religion will be held in Lysekloster Pines at 10:30 A. M. except Saturday. Fillmore Moore, M. D., the Director will lecture on dietetics (!!!!) and will be assisted by ....." — the subjects discussed by the lecturers whose names followed including psychology, education, literature and biography" It is doubtful whether the Religious Parliament idea, in its full implication, ever had any real appeal for Miss Farmer, who is on record as having declared that the Chicago Congresses had played no part in making her conceive the project of summer courses and conferences at Greenacre. She, in fact, sometimes spoke of the purpose of Greenacre as the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. And thus is not precisely the same as the promotion of the Religious Parliament movement, for every religious bigot will avow his adhesion to the former while refusing to accept the latter as a step in that direction. It is probable indeed that the reference to the Chicago Congresses in the original Greenacre program was by no means due to Sarah Farmer but was the thought of some more liberal promoter of the project — very possibly Mrs. Bull. It is worthy of note that the memory of this gifted lady is still kept green in Eliot, the cottage she once owned and occupied adjacent to the Inn being invariably called The Ole Bull Cottage, though since her day it has had many other occupants.

Though we deprive Sarah Jane Farmer of the halo with which the imagination of her more ardent admirers invested her, there can be no doubt that taken all in all she was a very remarkable woman. Through her father, Moses Farmer, an electrical inventor of some note, she was descended from Lord William Russell executed in London for treason under Charles II, being thus a distant relative of the present-day Bertrand Russell. The greater part of her life drifted by uneventfully, and it was only after the death of her father in 1893 who bequeathed her a modest inheritance of a few thousand dollars and the homestead of "Bittersweet" that she blossomed forth as the founder of Greenacre. She founded this at an age, forty-seven, when most women are contented to He placidly on the shelf, and it became famous almost over-night, being soon renowned among the intellectuals, from coast to coast, from Canada to California.[3] Her personality was most charming, and the smile with which she silenced her critics and bent the will of others to her own is still talked of. She "smiled as the angels must smile" wrote Miss Churchill. Those who called upon her were regaled with the smile — "a cup of tea and a welcome" being her motto as hostess — and none went away feeling dissatisfied. She had a marvellous faculty for obtaining gratuitous labor for the cause of Greenacre, her smile and words of praise being adjudged sufficient recompense. She was equally proficient in persuading people to open their purses to contribute to a worth}- cause, and boasted that she had "once raised $2,000 for a struggling little French church in twenty minutes time, and the audience was not a wealthy one."

Sarah Farmer, while not precisely beautiful, was a tall woman of graceful presence and slender proportions. "Her face with its habitual expression of introspective interest was the face of a dreamer." An enthusiastic admirer, Kate Pitkin, writing in 1899 in The New Orleans Times-Democrat, tells us that "her light slender hair is drawn back from her fine brow into an unobtrusive knot on her neck. Her complexion is suggestive of exquisite cleanliness and her eyes of inward purity and upward devotion." In the morning she usually appeared in a soft gray woolen gown which followed the curves of her body in unbroken lines. About her throat she wore a white lace scarf crossed on the bosom with an Egyptian pin. "Her afternoon gowns are of crepe, of dull silks or satiny cashmere, gray always, of the pale silver shade, and whenever she appears with a bonnet, which is rare at Greenacre, it is small and close, and covered with a silvery nun's veiling which hangs to her waist behind."

Dr. Carus wrote:[4] "I knew Miss Farmer personally and stayed at Greenacre once. It was an interesting atmosphere, and it was her spirit that gave all the attractions to it. It was really a home of many cranks, and I will not deny that her judgment was not very well grounded or sufficient to keeping cranks out, but it was interesting to outsiders even to listen to a crank. As you say, everybody was welcome and a brotherly spirit obtained everywhere . . . Her sympathetic character . . . was friendly to all kinds of thought and welcomed every sincere faith." "I met Miss Farmer for the first time at the house of Judge Waterman in Chicago. Mrs. Waterman had died recently and Miss Farmer met on her visit to Chicago Mr. Bonney as well as myself and she expressed to Mr. Bonney her desire to produce a continued institution which should serve the spirit of the Religions Parliament, and it was in this sense that she invited me to deliver some lectures out in Greenacre. I have the impression that Miss Farmer was a lovely spirit of deep religious convictions, but not very definite or clear in her aims. She was willing to accept from Mr. Bonney what he proposed to her, and while I was in Greenacre she tried her best to serve the spirit of the Religious Parliament in universal brotherhood as well as in service in spreading light and scientific insight on religious questions."

A certain proportion of the Greenacreites followed Miss Farmer into the Bahai fold (some of them developing a fanaticism which she never exhibited) but this was very far from being the case with all even of those who willingly accepted her as leader in the work at Eliot. Nor did Miss Farmer ever make any attempt to have this Persian religion preached at Greenacre to the exclusion of other religious doctrines. In the beginning she contented herself with giving the Bahai teachings a prominent place on her program and writing Greenacre in two words "Green Acre" that it might be reminiscent of the Acre in Syria. She announced in her program of 1903 that "the Green Acre Conferences were established in 1894 on the banks of the Piscataqua in Maine, with the express purpose of bringing together all who were looking earnestly towards the new Day which seemed to be breaking over the entire world and were ready to serve and be served. The motive was to find the Truth, the Reality, underlying all religious forms in order to promote the unity necessary for the ushering in of the coming Day of God. Believing that the Revelation of the Baha Ullah of Persia is the announcement of this great Day — the beginning of the Golden Age foretold by all seers, sung by poets — and finding that it provides a platform on which the Jew, the Christian (both Catholic and Protestant), the Mohammedan, as well as the members of all other great religious bodies can stand together in love and harmony, each holding to the form which best nourishes his individual life, an opportunity will be given to all who desire to study its Message." Evidently what is here alleged to have been the original purpose of the Greenacre Conferences is very different from that set forth in the program of 1894 cited above. Miss Farmer however took care to add: "As in previous years there will be no sectarianism at Green Acre. The effort will be to inspire and strengthen each to follow his highest light in order that by degrees he may know Truth for himself from the invisible guiding of the Eternal Spirit." In the 1904 program it was stated that "For ten years Green Acre has stood with open doors calling to the people of all nations to come together in peace and unity to prepare for the approaching glad New Day. Now that it has been shown that what was held in vision through faith has become fact through the great Revelation of the Baha Ullah, the time seems to be at hand to lay special emphasis upon the command: Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, and upon the joys and blessings of servitude."' And in that year Myron H. Phelps, accepted from his ultra-eulogistic Life and Teachings of Abbas Effendi as a staunch Bahai, replaced Dr. Moore (who was not of that category) as Director of the School of Comparative Religion. In 1905 the program stated that "For four years Green Acre has proclaimed from the printed page of its program that, at least in the mind of its founder, what is known to the world as Bahaism is not a new 'ism' to stand side by side with and rival former religious systems, but that it is the completion and fulfillment of all that has preceded it. Whatever of truth is found in the great religious systems of the world, is found in Bahaism, elucidated and explained so fully in detail that the 'abundant life' revealed centuries ago now becomes a joyful reality. Each year, however, this message seems less and less understood by those into whose life the realization of this fullness had previously come, and it seems that placing this system on the same forum with the other in the Monsalvat School is in danger of bringing confusion to the mind instead of the desired peace. For this reason she who has carried in her heart for twelve years or more the thought of unity and concord among the sons of God, has decided to return to the original forum under the Persian Pine, that this great Revelation may be studied and interpreted in a place apart by itself, thus relieving other Green Acre workers from embarrassment and the necessity of explanation."

It is clear that what this amounted to was that the proponents of the new cult had in the beginning supposed that when set forth side by side with the teachings of other faiths everyone who gave ear would at once recognize the superiority of the Bahai revelation to all others.' But they had now come to realize their mistake and to perceive that with a fair field and no favor the Persian cult would not be accepted as all-sufficient by more than a small percentage of those who heard it advocated. The prevalent attitude, in fact, was that of listening sympathetically to the preachings of all faiths and taking from each whatever the individual listener thought valuable: it was the tolerant pagan attitude of the old Greenacre and not the intolerant bigotry of Mohammedanism. Although the favored position of Bahaism was further accentuated by having the Bahai advocates continue to preach at the School of Comparative Religion (in addition to carrying on sectarian meetings under the Persian Pine) this measure failed of its purpose: the Greenacreites did not abandon the School of Comparative Religion held under the Prophets' Pine and flock to the Persian Pine to hear the one true and genuine revelation. And to-day while the stately Bodhi Pine and Swami Pine and Prophets' Pine still proudly lift their branches towards heaven and continue to flourish in their original healthy vigor, the Persian Pine, which the sacred array of nine encircling stones has failed to protect, is dying, rotting away at the very heart: an interesting bit of symbolism for those who believe in portents.