1913I] W^ar and Manhood 



I could hardly fail to present the essential features of 

 my argument against militarism. The audience was 

 largely drawn from aristocratic circles, and, leaving 

 out Sir John Brunner and Sir William Osier — both 

 of whom I had met in 1910^ — formed a distinctly 

 ultraconservative group. They were extremely courte- 

 ous, however, although it was obvious that as a whole 

 they felt war to be a national blessing, however trying 

 to individual men. 



When I had finished, the chairman, Sir James 

 Crichton-Browne, the distinguished surgeon, whose 

 duty it was to thank the speaker, seemed somewhat 

 embarrassed. Indeed, he said in substance that the 

 address did not prove to be what he had expected. 

 He had looked for an argument based on science to Anun- 

 show that military training and even war itself were '"'^"^'^ 

 strengthenmg experiences, hardenmg the muscles and 

 stiffening the nerves of a nation, and so making 

 good all losses as far as vigor is concerned. But he 

 complimented me for range of information, and 

 especially for "volubility"! 



I afterward gave an address before a joint meeting Peace 

 of peace organizations, Norman Angell being also '"■s^"''- 

 on the program and, if I remember rightly. Lady 

 Barlow, an active member of the Society of 

 Friends, whose husband. Sir John Emmott Barlow, 

 then held a seat in Parliament. This gathering brought 

 me into personal contact with English workers for 

 conciliation, notably with the National Peace Council 

 of which the energetic and sagacious secretary was 

 and still is Carl Heath. The following evening, at 

 Lady Barlow's invitation, we met with a number of 

 interested people in her parlors at the Hotel Caven- 



1 See Chapter xxxvii, pages 327-328. 



1:461 a 



