January 31, 191b 
LAI\D & WATER 
LAND & WATER 
5. CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C.2 
Telephone HOLBORN 2828. 
THURSDAY, JANUARY 31. 1918 
CONTENTS 
PAGE 
I 
Germany's War Aims. By Louis Kacniaekers 
A Xational Danger (Leacier) ^ 
'J'lie New State in Europe. — III. By Hilaire Belloc 4 
( nTnian Sea Enterprise. By Arthur Pollen 8 
'] he Health of the Fleet. By Lewis R. Freeman, R.N.V.R. lo 
Bolsheviks at Work ir 
An 111 Wind. By Francis Brett Young ij 
Leaves from a German Note Book 15 
V'iewsof a Prussian Militarist. By Kenneth Beaton iG 
The Universal Memory. By J. C. Squire. 17 
Books of the Week. 18 
The Mine Crater, Hill 60. By Lieut. Paul Nash 19 
'Ihe New Landscape (Illustrated) By Charles Marriott 20 
Domestic Economy 22 
Notes on Kit. 25 
NOTICE 
AFTER this week the price of Land & Water will 
be 9d. 
Next week's issue will contain the introduction to 
Mr. John R. Rathom's Revelations of German Intrigue 
(lo which reference is made on the opposite page) ; a 
short story by Centurion ; special sections on Country 
Life, Literature and Art : and the usual contributions 
by Mr. Belloc and Mr. Pollen on military and naval 
affairs. 
In view of the exceptional interest which will be 
aroused by Mr. Rathom's articles, the demand for 
Land & Water is likely to be greater than ever ; and wc 
particularly request all our readers to order their copies 
in advance. 
A NATIONAL DANGER 
«A BOUT a fortnight ago there simultaneously appeared 
/^ in several papers an attack upon the present 
/ — ^ command of the British Army at home and abroad. 
•■ -^- These papers are all controlled by one man, and 
form what is \irtually a Trust or monopoly. This News- 
paper Trust has during the last two years increasingly assimied 
the right and the power to upset ministries, to nominate new 
ministers and discharge others, and to dictate and veto 
public polity. The danger of such a state of affairs during 
a national war for life, ought, perhaps, to have been long 
ago apparent to everybody. But it usually takes some 
sharp peril or shock to arouse pubUc opinion. Such an 
example was needed here before public opinion was moved 
sufficiently to act. The claim of a newsp>aper owner, respon- 
sible to no one, acting by suggestion upon millions of readers, 
and yet keeping his name and influence in the background— 
the claim of such a man to interfere at such a moment as 
this with the British Higher Command, to change it at his 
will, and to put chance nominees of his own into the places 
of its present occupants, was a claim that passed the limits 
of public tolerance. It was high time ! 
Wc all know wliat followed. In the face of such a protest 
as has not been made since the attack on Lord Kitchener two 
years ago, the newspaper campaign was for the moment 
stopped, and it seemed as though its authors had been taught 
tiieir lesson once and for all. Men went about saying tliut 
the thing was over and that the exceedingly dangerous piece 
of insolence they had just witnessed would not be renewed. 
Those who thought this were deceived : those who had 
a full acquaintance with its character were less sanguine. 
It is part of such people's calculation that the public of our 
great modern cities has so poor a memory, and is so lacking 
in principle as to be easily the dupe of a fresh attack withui 
a coui)le of weeks of tliat wliich first rendered it indignant. 
Alter such an interval therefore the outrage has been renewed, 
iind we have had this week a second attack on the cluete of the 
army. We believe, with all due deference to these experts 
in popular folly and instability, that they have overreached 
themselves. A fortnight was not enough to allow lor the 
forgetting of the first crime, and general opinion was roused 
to indignation. But beside general opinion another powerful 
opposition was aroused. The latent forces which our society 
can develop in defence of its fundamental institutions against 
so maleficent a power, are greater than it dreams of. This 
country is fighting a fight of life and of death. It has tolerated, 
during the last two years, more — far more — than it should 
have tolerated from' this "government by newspaper." 
It has done so on account of the easy-going habit engendered 
by a long period of prosperity and peace. But there is a 
limit to its patience, and it has discovered that in time of 
mortal war drastic government is necessary and the old 
tolerations of normal times must be suspended. .\ very 
little more of this usurpation— of this attempt to dictate 
measures without any responsibility for failure — and the 
nation at large will demand and support immediate action 
against the culprits and their due punishment. 
The motives of these sudden outbursts against public 
servants — each one of which in its turn has been fatal to the 
individual attacked — are nearly always personal : never- 
theless, the whole State is thrown into jeopardy. It was a 
morally intolerable position two years ago when the original 
Grand. Alhance was still intact, when Russia was still a strong 
military Power, and when the strain of the war had not 
reached its present extremity. To-day, when we all know 
that the ordeal of the next few months must decide the fate 
of England, this newspaper government is both morally and 
practically intolerable ; we feel that it may' breed immediate 
and overwhelming disaster. There is a universal feeling that 
it must either be silenced by the strength of opinion or 
better, by the direct action of the Government. 
It is exceedingly impo'rtant to appreciate in this connection 
that the discussion is fiot whether this or that great 
official of the State— this or that soldier in a high position, 
this or that executive officer — is the best discoverable ; whether 
a long term of office has fatigued this or that commander at 
home or abroad ; whether this or that hitherto untried talent 
should not be given its opportunity, etc. The issue is not of 
that kind at all. The issue is between two forms of Govern- 
ment. The first form of Government is that which all 
civilised nations have hitherto understood, which was long 
our own strength, and is still the strength of our enemies. 
It is the form of government in wtiich those who command 
are publicly clothed with certain titles, exercise an open 
authority and are necessarily responsible in one form or 
another for the results of their actions. The other form of 
Government which proposes to replace this is a complete 
example of demagogy in its worst form. It is Government 
by a newspaper owner who does not write or speak liimself ; 
who does not appear in public ; who is responsible to no 
one, and who commands through a great variety of organs 
an apparent consensus of opinions. Such a man can suggest 
anything ; can boycott whom he chooses, can print on 
public affairs whatever impression he hkes, so long as he is 
left immune from the ordinary processes of the law. 
The whole heart of the matter Ues in the fact that if 
responsible Government commits an error, and disaster 
results, men know who gave the order. Its author has been 
kept under public observatioh. The nation can in one 
fashion or another remove him — or, at any rate, brhig liim to 
book. " Responsibilit\' " means that you must " answer 
for" your actions and their consequences; irresponsible 
government is anarchy. If a man whose name docs not 
appear, whose power is anonymous and yet in his own estima- 
tion absolute, is permitted to depress opinion at will, to 
pubhsh news inciting to panic and to end by nominating 
our commanders, the nation is without power of redress, 
and the direction of affairs is at random. To permit such a 
power to continue its mischievous course unrestrained is 
like allowing some chance intiTference with powerful ma- 
chinery' — the interference of a child or of a jester. It is worse.. 
This modern sort of demagogy, anonymous and 
l)0ssessed of such extraordinary' opportunities, makes for 
catastrophe. 
