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 a 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 dryest 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 especially and supremely wrong upon their own principles of arbitration and international peace.

As to Certain Peace Lovers.

These sincere and high-minded peace lovers are always telling us that citizens no longer settle their quarrels by private violence, and that nations should no longer settle theirs by public violence.  They are always telling us that we no longer fight duels, and need no longer wage wars.  In short, they perpetually base their peace proposals on the fact that an ordinary citizen no longer avenges himself with an axe.

But how is he prevented from avenging himself with an axe?  If he hits his neighbor on the head with the kitchen chopper what do we do?  Do we all join hands, like children playing mulberry bush, and say:  “We are all responsible for this, but let us hope it will not spread.  Let us hope for the happy, happy day when he shall leave off chopping at the man’s head, and when nobody shall ever chop anything forever and ever.”  Do we say:  “Let bygones be bygones.  Why go back to all the dull details with which the business began?  Who can tell with what sinister motives the man was standing there within reach of the hatchet?”

We do not.  We keep the peace in private life by asking for the facts of provocation and the proper object of punishment.  We do not go into the dull details; we do inquire into the origins; we do emphatically inquire who it was that hit first.  In short, we do what I have done very briefly in this place.