deadening circle of uniforms, decorations, and insincere courtesy, having no more knowledge of the people’s desires than of the people’s bacon, and instructed to maintain the cause of peace chiefly by safeguarding their country’s military interests.  An atmosphere of suspicion and secrecy surrounded them, more dense than the fog of war.  For their president they elected an ambassador who had grown old in the service of three Tsars, and now represented a tyrant who refused the first principles of peace to his own people, and repressed the struggle for freedom by methods of barbarism such as no general could use against a belligerent in the stress of war without incurring the execration of mankind.

With commendable industry, those delegates at this Second Peace Conference devoted themselves to careful preparations for the next war, especially for the next naval war.  They appeared to me like two farmers making arrangements to abstain from burning each other’s hay-ricks.  “Look here,” says one, “this rick-burning’s a dangerous and expensive job.  Let us give up wax vestas, and stick to safety matches.”  “Done!” says the other.  “Now mind!  Only safety matches in future!” and they part with mutual satisfaction, conscious of thrift and Christian forbearance.  Or, again, I thought the situation might be expressed in the form of a fable, how the Fox of the Conference said to the Rabbit of Peace, “With what sauce, Brer Rabbit, would you like to be eaten?” “Please, Mr. Fox, I don’t want to be eaten at all,” said the Rabbit “Now,” answered the Fox, “you are gettin’ away from the pint.”

Something, no doubt, has been gained.  Even the jealous diplomatists and cautious lawyers at The Hague have secured something.  Mankind had gradually learnt that certain forms of horror were too horrible for average civilisation, and The Hague confirmed man’s veto, in some particulars.  Laying mines at sea and the destruction of private property at sea were not forbidden, nor were the rights of belligerents extended to subject races or rebels.  Men and women are still exposed to every kind of torture and brutality, provided the brutalities are practised by their own superior government.  But it is something, certainly, to have gained a permanent Court of Arbitration for the trial of disputed points between nations.  The points are at present minor, it is true.  Questions affecting honour, vital interests, and independence are expressly excluded.  But the habit of referring any question at all to arbitration is a gain, if only we could trust the members of the Court.  So long as those members are appointed by the present governments of Europe, there is danger of the Court becoming merely another engine in the hands of despotism, as was proved by the conduct of the Savarkar case at The Hague in February 1911.  But the field of reference will grow imperceptibly, and we have had President Taft protesting that he desires an Arbitration Treaty with England from which even questions of honour, vital