August lO, 1917 
LAND & WATER 
LAND & WATER 
OLD SERJEANTS' INN, LONDON, W.C. 
Telephone HOLBORN 2828. 
THURSDAY, AUGUST 16. 1917 
CONTENTS 
PAGE 
I 
Death to the Hohenzollerns ! By Louis Racmackers 
The Case of Mr. Hendt-rson (Leader) 3 
The Crisis. ByHilaire Belloc 4 
Consultative Treason. By H. M. Hyndman <> 
The MiUtary Situation. ByHilaire Belloc 8 
America's Industrial Mobilisation. By Isaac F. Marcosson ii 
The New Civilisation. By The Editor : I2 
Prussians in Alsace. BvHenry^D. Davray I4 
Pinkerton's Great Coup. By H . Russell \Vakelield i .5 
A Note on the Flight of Shells. By R. Monteith i '' 
The Green Spot. By Morley Sharp i7 
Books to Read. Bv Lucian Oldershaw i*^ 
The Desert made bv Germans (Illustrated). By James 
Milne ' lO 
Domestic Economy 22 
Kit and Equipment 25 
THE CASE OF MR. HENDERSON 
THE crisis wliich threatens the victory of the Allies 
is common to all Europe, but we are naturally in this 
country specially concerned with its local aspect and 
we may legitimately concentrate upon it. It comes at 
the end of a whole series. The vote of the Labour Conference 
in fa\-our of going to Stockholm not only came as a sort "of 
climax to a movement whicli had been growing for some time, 
but had, unfortunately, for the moment at least, a decisive 
effect. 
The beginning of things, was the declaration by a mixed 
cosmopolitan group in the cosmopolitan centre of Petrograd 
in favour of peace. They used a phrase directly imported 
from Berlin — " no annexation and no indemnities " — in other 
words, the policy which the masters of the German Empire 
have been working for against the stupider of their subjects. 
How far this piece of folly was deliberate, which of the little 
:liques in Petrograd were agents and which dupes is in- 
iifierent to the practical result. It is clear that the German 
r.overnment and Higher Command eagerly seizejl the oppor- 
tunity and made everything ready for permitting a German 
delegacy to go to Stockholm. A few public men from this 
country visited Russia both before and during the revolu- 
tion. Mr. Henderson was chosen among others, and believed, 
as might have been expected, that he was meeting men repre- 
senting Russian national feeling. That great country, ad- 
mittedly the most difficult for us of the West to understand, 
had to be judged in a few hours by a not very competent 
politician, hitherto quite ignorant of European affairs, and the 
result was what might have been expected — he advised the 
sending of British delegates to Stockholm. 
We all know what followed. Mr. Hender.son, just a week 
after his return, went over to Paris after some kind of con- 
sultation with his colleagues of the Cabinet, the degree and 
matter of which is doubtful. He went with Mr. Macdonald, 
two German Jews from Petrograd (whom he doubtless thought 
to be Russians), and he was apparently officially accompanied 
by some public servant or servants. Everything was made 
easy for him to undertake this journey and he undertook it 
with the authority of a Cabinet Minister. No one in the 
French capital could have taken his visit in any other cap- 
acity. The good side of representative institutions appeared 
immediately after in the fact that the whole episode (which 
had been carefully kept from public knowledge) was dis- 
cussed under the privileges of the House of Commons, and the 
British public were astonished to discover that one of the few 
men with some ofTicial r-ight to speak in their, name had been 
jnirsuing a policy which they cordially detest and repudiate. 
Mr. Henderson, called upon to defend himself, put forth the' 
astonishing plea, that though he was a Cabinet Minister 
he did not go abroad in the capacity of a Cabinet" Minister 
but in the capacity of head of the Labour Part}'. The 
working part of the War Cabinet thereupon discussed the very 
unpleasant situation in which their colleague had landed 
them, and, to spare his feelings, kept him waiting for an 
hour in another room while they did so. It is to be feared 
that this indignity rankled and had something to do with the 
next development of an episode which is comic in spite of its 
grave result. 
The next step in the story is doubtful. Mr. Henderson 
says that he gave his colleagues to understand that he would 
influence the Labour Conference in favour of going to Stock- 
holm ; all his colleagues, hywever, are unanimous in saying 
he did the exact opposite, and gave them to understand he 
would work against so fatal a decision. The probabilities are 
in the nature of the case, very heavy against Mr. Henderson, 
since the Cabinet would certainly have taken action at once 
had they received the impression that their colleague was 
going to advise against the most vital interests of the 
nation. But apart from this there is the fact that Mr. Hender- 
son took the trouble to write a letter after he had made his 
speech to the Conference excusing himself to his chief, the 
Prime Minister. There can be no reasonable doubt that the 
version put forward by all of Mr. Henderson's colleagues is 
the true one and that he gave them the impression that he 
was going to work as the most elementary statesmanship 
required. Mr. Henderson, speaking at the Conference with 
all the authority of a Cabinet Minister (he has no other) 
i.e., as a man knowing what plain citizens cannot know, 
and as a man representing a national poli'cy which must 
necessarily be kept secret, persuaded the Conference that 
delegates ought to go to Stockholm and the members present 
followed his lead. 
We all know the conclusion. Mr. Lloyd George's long and 
exceedingly plain-spoken letter, Mr. Henderson's lame de- 
fence in the House of Commons, and Mr. Asquith's inter- 
vention, which recalled the fact that we were at war, and 
stilled the uproar. As we write these words the last develop- 
ment is that the Cabinet has decided against the issuing of 
passports, and it is to be hoped they will stand firm in this 
right decision. 
Of the many moralsthat may be drawn from this fiasco and 
the harm that it has already done, the clearest and the least 
debatable is the moral that Parliamentary methods which are 
the experience and habit of the ParUamentary pohtician ^ 
do not make for decision, strength of will, and resolute action. 
The people most heavily to blame in the whole matter were 
nci Mr. Henderson and his group, but Mr. Henderson's col- 
leagues. The responsibility was shirked, no definite line was 
taken, but everybody left it to somebody else, and the result 
was what we have seen. Had the Cabinet spoken through any 
of its organs, in a firm and quite unmistakable manner, had it 
said, even as late as a fortnight ago, that there would be no 
traffic with such perilous nonf«nse as white flag ; parleying 
with the enemy by any section of the community, and that 
such action was, in plain English, treason and to be punished 
as treason, the whole nation would have vigorously applauded 
the act, have supported it, and would have felt that it was 
governed as men should be governed under the strain of war. 
Instead of that, there was a Tong shilly-shally, resulting 
as shilly-shallies always do, in a breakdomi. If the lesion is 
learnt, at least so far as to guarantee us from such errors 
in the future, perhaps the anxiety which we have suffered 
during the last few days will not have been suffered in vain. 
The situation still requires very -careful handling. 
It must be made quite clear that the Government in its 
action is not condemning any serious body of opinion, and 
above all that it is not showing contempt for the real voice 
jf the working masses of the country — that vast majority upon 
which all public opinion, and therefore all proj>er conduct 
of the war, ultimately depends. There is no doubt whatso- 
ever of what that opinion is, of its patriotism or of its tenacitj', 
but even " unpopular and discredited leaders " may become 
symbols of the popular power which they misrcpres'.ent, and na 
ground must be given for any complaint upon the.ir part that 
those for whom they say they stand, have been treated hghtly. 
