the relation between military power and national greatness and prosperity was to-day what it always has been.  In effect, Lord Roberts’ case amounts to this:—­

“We have built up our Empire and our trade by virtue of the military power of our state; we exist as a nation, sail the seas, and carry on our trade, by virtue of our predominant strength; as that strength fails we shall do all these things merely on the sufferance of stronger nations, who, when pushed by the needs of an expanding population to do so, will deprive us of the capacity for carrying on those vital functions of life, and transfer the means of so doing to themselves to their very great advantage; we have achieved such transfer to ourselves in the past by force and must expect other nations to try and do the same thing unless we are able to prevent them.  It is the inevitable struggles of life to be fought out either by war or armaments.”

These are not Lord Roberts’ words, but the proposition is the clear underlying assumption of his speech.  And his critics do not seriously challenge it.  Mr. Churchill by implication warmly supports it.  At Glasgow he said:  “The whole fortune of our race and Empire, the whole treasure accumulated during so many centuries of sacrifice and achievement would perish and be swept utterly away, if our naval supremacy were to be impaired.”

Now why should there be any danger of Germany bringing about this catastrophe unless she could profit enormously by so doing?  But that implies that a nation does expand by military force, does achieve the best for its people by that means; it does mean that if you are not stronger than your rival, you carry on your trade “on sufferance” and at the appointed hour will have it taken from you by him.  And if that assumption—­plainly indicated as it is by a Liberal Minister—­is right, who can say that Lord Roberts’ conclusion is not justified?

     Now as to the means of preventing the war.  Lord Roberts’ formula
     is:—­

     “Such a battle front by sea and land that no power or probable
     combination of powers shall dare to attack us without the certainty
     of disaster.”

     This, of course, is taken straight from Mr. Churchill, who, at
     Dundee, told us that “the way to make war impossible is to be so
     strong as to make victory certain.”

     We have all apparently, Liberals and Conservatives alike, accepted
     this “axiom” as self-evident.

Well, since it is so obvious as all that we may expect the Germans to adopt it.  At present they are guided by a much more modest principle (enunciated in the preamble of the German Navy Law); namely, to be sufficiently strong to make it dangerous for your enemy to attack.  They must now, according to our “axiom,” be so strong as to make our defeat certain.

I am quite sure that the big armament