Jnno 2T, tot; 
LAND & WATER 
II 
country as tin; liigliest sarrificc lie can make, l)nt the very 
fact that his life is trembling in the balance gives it a new 
significance and value. For this reason the man who endures 
all the discomforts, and the hardships and the dangers of • 
this war will not put up with the standards that seemed 
tolerable before the war. No man, whatever his power or 
his riches, can give more to his country than the man, stand- 
ing in the cold trench at early dawn with bayonet fixed 
waiting for the attack, who a year ago occupied as insignificant 
a place as you can find in the economy of industry. War 
in this sense is an equalising revolution in social life destroying 
the arrogance of rank or intellect, for a common heroism 
puts rich and poor, plain man and intellectual, on one level of 
service. And men who accepted the general atmosphere of 
a society which treated them rather as instruments than as 
citizenswill certainly revolt against this tradition, for the 
life which they did not grudge to their country has a higher 
value from the moment it was offered : a value outside and 
apart from the economy of industry. Those who have seen 
much of the army know that soldiers count it not the least 
of their sacrifice that they became the instruments of a 
mihtary system in a great crisis, and they are determined 
to be something more than instruments when that crisis is 
past. 
For in the world of sacrifice and struggle, in which he 
finds himself, the soldier begins to reflect on larger issues, 
which wen^ obscure and rather unreal to him, because they 
were shrouded in an atmospliere of conventional acquiescence. 
He feels that if men are to sulfer the indescribable misery 
he sees about him, the system that calls for these sacrifices 
must be brought into a much closer relatioi\ to the freedom 
and happiness fif men and women. He begins to put the 
question with which all revolutions start, "What bearing has 
this elaborate system of social life on my life and the lives of 
others ? " The economists, whose legacies our civilisation 
has been carrying on its back, asked the converse question, 
" Wliat liearing have the lives of men and women on this 
elaborate social system ? " For the economist started from 
the system and explained man's life in relation to tliat system, 
whereas the men of the new army start from life and ask of a 
system how it satisfies the natural wants of men and women. 
There is again another important respect in which the 
war has emajicipated our minds. When a people is thrown 
on its resijurces, it discovers new and unsuspected powers. 
That happened to Franco in 1792. Burke thought in 1700 
that she haif ceased to count in Europe : " I'rance is at this 
time in a jiolitical light to be considered as expunged out of 
the system of Juirope. Whether she could ever appear in 
it again as a leading Power was not easy to determine ; but 
at present I consider France as not politically existing, 
and most assuredly it would take up much time to restore her 
to her former active existence. Gallos quoque in bellis 
floruissc audivimus might possibly be the language of the 
rising generation." This was the prediction of a man 
generally regarded as a kind of seer about a people that a few 
years later was ruling over half of Europe. France became 
not a leading Power, but the leading Power, because Europe 
by attacking the Revolution obliged her to discover and 
develof) her full strength. 
This is what has happened to Great Britain in this war. 
In 1914 Germany was prepared for war down to the last 
button. We were so unprepared that we were actually 
embarrassed to find the necessary drafts for our modest little 
army in time of peace. To the historian of this period 
the effort of the last three years vtdll read like a miracle. If 
anybody had said before the war- that we should be able to 
raise an army of five millions, to withdraw some millions in 
addition from productive employment and yet supplv our- 
selves and help largely towards supplying our Allies with the 
necessaries of life and war, he would have seemed a madman. 
For it was not imtil we were thrown on our resources that we 
learnt our strength. This experience lias removed the word 
" impossible " from the language of politics. It has destroyed 
the superstition of the iron law which has checked and 
hampered all our hopes. It has brought a new faith in human 
])ower : a new sense of the freedom and the range of the human 
will, an escape from an atmosphere of doubt and paralysis. 
It is like the breaking of a long frost. 
Thus, whereas on one side men are Ioo4cing to self-deter- 
mination as their ideal, judging the institutions of society by 
the opportunities they give to men and women to satisfy 
the needs and impulses of their character, asking infinitely 
more of their civilisation than they asked before the war, 
on the otiier side, the war has emancipated and widened 
fiur imagination, teaching us that we have much more power 
over our future than we supposed. It is from the com- 
bination of these two forces, new ambition and new con- 
fidence, that the motive powerof Reconstruction will come. 
The New Morality 
By Arthur Kitson 
THE war has brought to view many strange and 
curious sights, but surely nothing stranger or more 
curious than the new Moral Code which Pacifists 
are busy preaching and expounding. When the news 
of the Hun horrors perpetrated m Belgium and Northern 
I'Yance first aroused the anger and indignation of the civilised 
world, there arose a strangely discordant cry from several 
little groups of persons who liave hitherto claimed an abnor- 
mally high standard of moral culture, who pose as the friends 
of humanity, and who regard Nationality and Patriotism as 
beneath cont';mpt. 
The cry of 'these persons was raised, not against the German 
savages for their butcheries and unspeakable atrocities com- 
mitted upon the inoffensive citizens of a country their Govern- 
ment had sworn to protect, but against the Allies, who were 
the subjects of German treachery, "jand especially against their 
own country for following the path of dutv and honour. 
It seems incredible that any really intelligent and civilised 
person could be found capable of offering moral support to the 
enemies of God and man, which the Germans have shown 
theinselves to be: But when we are told that this Anti- 
British pro-German attitude is the result of supremely high 
moral considerations, we begin to wonder what new kind of 
morality is this which, whilst denouncing the saviours of 
civiHsation, refuses to censure or endorse the punishment or. 
" humiliation " of those who are engaged in blotting out' 
whole races that refuse to submit to the Teuton rule! 
As to the main facts of the war, its origin, its authors, 
its ruthlessness and savagery. Pacifists remain discreetly 
silent. It is true that at" the beginning of the war 
several of the Pacifist leaders made shamefully libellous 
charges against this country and Russia, which "they must 
have known were absolutely false, either at the time they 
made them or very soon after. But as they have never witli- 
drawn them or offered any apology, it is only fair to conclude 
that their assertions were the result of an embittered prejudice 
against their own country. 
Apart from these men, there are n.o douljt others who 
were and are still opposed to this country's participation in 
the war, from what they believe to be conscientious motives. 
Their moral code contained no provision for hostilities, hence 
they fell back on the doctrine of non-resistance. The doctrine 
of non-resistance is an old one and has been courageously 
followed by thousands. We properly revere and praise the 
memories of " the noble army of martyrs " who have in all 
ages suffered for what they believed to be the truth and met 
aggression with non-resistance. Are the Pacifists entitled 
to rank as martyrs — although in an unworthy cause ? Are 
these people honestly sincere in wishing to forgive and forget 
the villainies of the Huns ? No doubt there are some here 
and there who believe they are following the teachings of 
Christianity ; but there are certain facts which throw sus- 
])icion on the general movement. The New Morality does not 
consist in merely " loving your enemies " and " submitting 
to evil." Judging by the actions and sayings of these people 
" loving your enemies," implies hating your own people and 
country, and " submitting to evil" is apparently confined to 
the evil of foreign aggression. The same people who profess 
to wish their coimtry to turn the other cheek to the Hun 
smiter, fiercely resent not merely being smitten themselves, 
but even being controlled by their own Government. 
TJie most nottible difference between the old martyrs and 
modem I'acifists is that the former did not ask others' 
to suffer, they offered themselves as victims. Not so the 
present Pacifists and Conscientious Objectors. These are 
willing to have others suffer whilst they occupy places of 
security and ease. One can understand and even respect a 
person who, regarding war as a crime, refuses under any 
conditions to take part in it. But it is difficult to comprehend 
tliose who, fleny the moral right of a nation to defend it.self 
against aggression whilst seeking to justify the aggressors. 
To condemn the police for invading a home in order to appre- 
hend a burglar, and at the same time to plead extenuating 
circumstances for the burglar himself, is topsy-turveydoni. 
Curious as it may seem, the Pacifists appear to harbour 
hatred against their own covmtry, because of its 
