and scorn at the mention of Russia’s responsibility of Servia, or England’s responsibility of Belgium; and suggesting that, treaty or no treaty, frontier or no frontier, Russia would be out to slay Teutons or England to steal Colonies.  Here, as elsewhere, I think the professors dotted all over the Baltic plain fail in lucidity and in the power of distinguishing ideas.  Of course it is quite true that England has material interests to defend, and will probably use the opportunity to defend them; or, in other words, of course England, like everybody else, would be more comfortable if Prussia were less predominant.

The fact remains that we did not do what the Germans did.  We did not invade Holland to seize a naval and commercial advantage; and whether they say that we wished to do it in our greed, or feared to do it in our cowardice, the fact remains that we did not do it.  Unless this commonsense principle be kept in view, I cannot conceive how any quarrel can possibly be judged.  A contract may be made between two persons solely for material advantage on each side:  but the moral advantage is still generally supposed to lie with the person who keeps the contract.  Surely it cannot be dishonest to be honest—­even if honesty is the best policy.  Imagine the most complex maze of indirect motive; and still the man who keeps faith for money cannot possibly be worse than the man who breaks faith for money.  It will be noted that this ultimate test applies in the same way to Servia as to Belgium and Britain.  The Servians may not be a very peaceful people, but on the occasion under discussion it was certainly they who wanted peace.  You may choose to think the Serb a sort of born robber:  but on this occasion it was certainly the Austrian who was trying to rob.  Similarly, you may call England perfidious as a sort of historical summary; and declare your private belief that Mr. Asquith was vowed from infancy to the ruin of the German Empire, a Hannibal and hater of the eagles.  But, when all is said, it is nonsense to call a man perfidious because he keeps his promise.  It is absurd to complain of the sudden treachery of a business man in turning up punctually to his appointment:  or the unfair shock given to a creditor by the debtor paying his debts.

Lastly, there is an attitude, not unknown in the crisis, against which I should particularly like to protest.  I should address my protest especially to those lovers and pursuers of peace who, very shortsightedly, have occasionally adopted it.  I mean the attitude which is impatient of these preliminary details about who did this or that, and whether it was right or wrong.  They are satisfied with saying that an enormous calamity, called war, has been begun by some or all of us and should be ended by some or all of us.  To these people, this preliminary chapter about the precise happenings must appear not only dry (and it must of necessity be the driest part of the task) but essentially needless and barren.  I wish to tell these people that they are wrong; that they are wrong upon all principles of human justice and historic continuity; but that they are specially and supremely wrong upon their own principles of arbitration and international peace.