England is convinced, and has repeatedly declared, in spite of her desires for the limitation of expenditure on armaments and for the adjustment of any disputes that may arise by arbitral procedure, that her fleet must in all circumstances be superior, or at any rate equal, to any possible combination in the world.  England has a perfect right to strive for such a state of things, and, precisely because of the position that I take up toward the disarmament question, I am the last to cast doubts upon it.  It is quite another thing, however, to make such a claim the basis of a convention which must be recognized by all the other powers in peaceful agreement.  What if counterclaims are raised and the other powers are not satisfied with the roles assigned to them?

     One only requires to propound these questions in order to see
     things would not go well for European dignity at any world congress
     which had to decide upon such claims.

And then armies.  If, for example, Germany should be required to reduce her army by 100,000 men, by how many men must the other powers diminish their armies?  Notwithstanding all the pacific assurances which, thank God, are being given everywhere, every nation would reply to me at any preliminary inquiry that it claims that position in the world which corresponds with the sum of its national power, that the strength of its defensive forces must be adapted to this claim.  At any rate, I would give no other reply for Germany.  I should be touching the honor and national sentiment of any other people if I expected any other statement from it.

Question of Control.

Every attempt at international disarmament must break down on the question of control, which is absolutely impracticable.  A classic example of that is afforded by Prussia when overthrown by Napoleon.  Her army was to be limited to 45,000 men, but her patriotism, notwithstanding the most ruthless application of every means of control, managed to raise an army four times as large.  The question of disarmament is insoluble so long as men are men and States are States.

In the course of the debate reference has been made to the recent utterances of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons on the disarmament question.  The English Minister gave expression to the idea that a reciprocal exchange of information concerning the naval construction of both countries would insure them against surprises, and that thereby both countries would be convinced that they were not trying mutually to outstrip each other, while other powers would thereby be kept informed regarding the relations of Germany and England, and so the exchange of announcements would, on the whole, serve to promote peace.

We were all the more able to adhere to this idea as our naval building programme has always lain open.  We have already declared