September 8, 192 1] 



NATURE 



55 



tions. There is, however, an element of good in 

 it, and the good, we trust, will develop and in- 

 crease with increase of years. The whole com- 

 plexion of the world — material, social, economic, 

 political, moral, spiritual — has been changed, in 

 certain aspects immediately for the worse, in 

 others prospectively for the better. It behoves 

 us, then, as a nation to pay heed to the lessons 

 of the war. 



The theme is far too complicated to be treated 

 adequately within the limits of such an address as 

 this; but there are some aspects of it germane to 

 the objects of this Association, and I venture, 

 therefore, in the time that remains to me, to bring 

 them to your notice. 



The Great War differed from all previous inter- 

 necine struggles in the extent to which organised 

 science was invoked and systematically applied in 

 its prosecution. In its later phases, indeed, 

 success became largely a question as to which of 

 the great contending parties could most rapidly 

 and most effectively bring its resources to their 

 aid. The chief protagonists had been in the fore- 

 front of scientific progress for centuries, and had 

 an accumulated experience of the manifold applica- 

 tions of science in practically every department of 

 human activity that could have any possible rela- 

 tion to the conduct of war. The military class 

 in every country is probably the most conservative 

 of all the professions and the slowest to depart 

 from tradition ; but when nations are at grips, and 

 they realise that their very existence is threatened, 

 every agency that may tend to cripple the ad- 

 versary is apt to be resorted to — no matter how 

 far it departs from the customs and conventions 

 of war. This is more certain to be the case if the 

 struggle is protracted. We have witnessed this 

 fact in the course of the late war. Those who, 

 realising that in the present imperfect stage of 

 civilisation wars are inevitable, yet strove to 

 minimise their horrors and formulated the 

 Hague Convention of 1899, were well aware how 

 these horrors might be enormously intensified by 

 the applications of scientific knowledge, and 

 especially of chemistry. Nothing shocked the 

 conscience of the civilised world more than 

 Germany's cynical disregard of the under- 

 taking into which she had entered with 

 other nations in regard, for instance, to the use 

 of lethal gas in warfare. The nation that 

 treacherously violated the treaty of Belgium 

 and even applauded the action, might be 

 expected to have no scruples in repudiating 

 her obligations under the Hague Convention. 

 April 25, 191 5, which saw the clouds of the 

 asphyxiating chlorine slowly wafted from the 

 German trenches towards the lines of the Allies, 

 witnessed one of the most bestial episodes in the 

 history of the Great War. The world stood 

 aghast at such a spectacle of barbarism. German 

 kultur apparently had absolutely no ethical value. 

 Poisoned weapons are employed by savages, and 

 noxious gas had been used in Eastern warfare in 

 early times, but its use was hitherto unknown 



NO. 2706, VOL. 108] 



among European nations. How it originated 

 among the Germans — whether by the direct un- 

 prompted action of the Higher Command, or, as 

 is more probable, at the instance of persons con- 

 nected with the great manufacturing concerns in 

 Rhineland, has, so far as I know, not transpirtU. 

 It was not so used in the earlier stages of the 

 war, even when it had become a war of position. 

 It is notorious that the great chemical manufac- 

 turing establishments of Germany had been, for 

 years previously, sedulously linked up in the 

 service of the war which Germany was deliberately 

 planning — probably, in the first instance, mainly 

 for the supply of munitions and medicaments. \\ e 

 may suppose that it was the tenacity of our troops, 

 and the failure of repeated attempts to dislodge 

 them by direct attack, that led to the employment 

 of such foul methods. Be this as it may, these 

 methods became part of the settled practice of our 

 enemies, and during the three succeeding years — 

 that is, from April, 191 5, to September, 191 8 — 

 no fewer than eighteen different forms of poison 

 — gases, liquids, and solids — were employed by 

 the Germans. On the principle of \ espasian's 

 law, reprisals became inevitable, and for the 

 greater part of three years we had the sorry spec- 

 tacle of the leading nations of the world flinging 

 at one another the most deadly products that 

 chemical knowledge could suggest and technical 

 skill contrive. Warfare, it would seem, has now 

 definitely entered upon a new phase. The horrors 

 which the Hague Convention saw were imminent, 

 and from which they strove to protect humanity, 

 are now, apparently, by the example and initiative 

 of Germany, to become part of the established pro- 

 cedure of war. Civilisation protests against a step 

 so retrograde. Surely comity among nations 

 should be adequate to arrest it. If the League of 

 Nations is vested with any real power it should 

 be possible for it to devise the means and to 

 ensure their successful application. The failure of 

 the Hague Convention is no sufficient reason for 

 despair. The moral sense of the civilised world 

 is not so dulled but that, if roused, it can make 

 its influence prevail. And steps should be taken 

 , without delay to make that influence supreme, 

 and all the more so that there are agencies at 

 work which would seek to perpetuate such 

 methods as a recognised procedure of war. The 

 case for what is called chemical warfare has not 

 wanted for advocates. It is argued that poison 

 gas is far less fatal and far less cruel than any 

 other instrument of war. It has been stated that 

 "amongst the ' mustard gas ' casualties the deaths 

 were less than 2 per cent., and when death did 

 not ensue complete recovery generallv ultimatelv 

 resulted. . . . Other materials of chemical warfare 

 in use at the armistice do not kill at all; they 

 produce casualties which, after six weeks in hos- 

 pital, are discharged practicallv without per- 

 manent hurt." It has been argued that, as a 

 method of conducting war, poison-gas is more 

 humane than preventive medicine. Preventive 

 medicine has increased the unit dimension of an 



