Land & Water 
March 21, 1 9 1 
Somewhai t- much has been made of a by-election 
decided tliis week in a suburb of Berlin where the working- 
class vote predominates. This vote was cast for the official 
or Majority Socialist with an enormous lead over his Minority 
opponent. No one with the least knowledge of German 
conditions at this moment could have doubted the issue. 
Even those who voted against tlic official candidate were, 
for the most part, in favour of the full German view of what 
peace can be enforced upon the Allies, for their protest is 
rather academic than real and, in so far as it is real, concerns 
domestic conditions much more tlian it does foreign policy. 
Even so, the voting was taken without the presence of the 
mobilised men. whose votes would only have gone to swell 
the majority still more. 
Tlie truth is that since Caporetto and the victorious carving 
up of Russia, the whole German mind takes victory, and a 
ver>' early victory, for granted— with the exception of the 
few directing soldiers who can judge the gravity and d*ubt 
of the military problem in the West. It is with such a 
confident mood that we have to deal, in spite of the very 
severe strain upon the civilian population, and that mood is 
rendered the more confident by evtry misunderstanding of it 
into which w'ell-meaning men fall over here. A great mass of 
Germany not only thinks that it will win, but thinks that it 
has won, and those who would parley with it confirm that 
judgment. 
* « * 
Prince Lichnowsky's private memorandum of the diplo- 
matic events which led up to the war is a document of out- 
standing importance. It has been published in th.e Swedish 
Socialist journal Politiken, and is undoubtedly authentic. 
It proves beyond all question that whatever may have been 
the faults or weakness of the British Foreign Office, Sir 
Edward Grey did work most honestly and sincerely for the 
peace of Europe. He found himself in much the same 
position as a host who is warned that one of his honoured 
guests is cheating at cards, but has no definite proof of it. 
How ought he to act ? Viscount Grey's reputation may 
be left to posterity. The late German Ambassador has made 
it clear for all time that Britain strove strenuously not only 
in the feverish July days of 1914, but for at lea?t two years 
before, in order to avert the war which Germany was deter- 
mined to force on Europe, strong in the belief" that world- 
dominion was at last within her grasp. A perusal of this 
memorandum can have only one effect upon the Allies — 
sterner resolution that the military defeat of Germany must 
be definite and complete if Europe is to have a settled peace. 
* * * 
The opening debate on the second reading of the Education 
Bill promises well for the future of the measure. Mr. Fisher 
has paid, perhaps, in his revision rather high a price for the 
support of the local education authorities ; but that support 
may make the difference between success and failure. The 
really crucial question at issue is the question of abolishing 
half-time before 14 and continuing education after that age. 
Sir Mark Sykes made a new point when he argued that the 
male population born between 1878 and 1900 would be 
"practically shattered" by the war, and that consequently 
in twenty years' time there would be far fewer men between 
40 and 60, so special responsibilities would be thrown upon 
the children of this and succeeding generations. 
Mr. Fisher addressed himself directly to the capital diffi- 
culty—the case of the cotton industry. He reminded the 
House that this industry, erected originally on a basis of 
workhouse labour, had never entirely recovered from its 
unfortunate start, and he contrasted"^ with the difficulties 
urged against the Bill the prospect that confronted the 
nation if it refused to set its house in order. In point of 
fact, the opposition did not come from Lancashire, for the 
three Lancashire members who spoke in the debate all 
welcomed the Bill. Discussion is still proceeding in the 
textile districts, but it is quite clear that neither employers 
nor workpeople are going to offer a united and uncom- 
promising resistance to the Bill. 
* * * 
For the first time. Mr. Fi.sher gave the House an estimate 
of the cost. Raising the school age will imply a million • 
contmuation education something under nine millions' 
thus the total cost of the Bill will be less than two days of 
the cost of the war. A nation that can regard such expendi- 
ture as a serious burden in the crisis in which we find our- 
selves would not be worthy to govern a hamlet 
An arnusing story is told of a meeting of a club of econo- 
niists who assembled not long ago for the first time since 
the outbreak of war. The previous meeting had been held 
in the summer of 1914. Wlien the minutes were read it 
appeared that the subject for the deliberation of the club 
on that occasion had been a paper read by a distinguished 
economist under the title, " Is it possible for any nation to 
sustain the burden of our heavy expenditure ? " The war 
had made the question look a little foolish in the interval. 
It has certainly made it seem outrageous that anybody 
should demur to adding ten millions to our expenditure 
on education. The true criticism of the Bill is not that it 
asks too much, but that it asks too little, for education. 
* * 4c 
The Central Board of Finance of the Church of England is 
distributing a circular letter, signed by the Archbishops of 
Canterbury and York, appealing to members of the Church 
to subscribe liberally to a new Central Fund, which is to be 
created to meet many urgent needs. Surely it would be 
wiser before new revenues and endowments were created, if 
the existing ones were placed on a sounder and more business 
basis ? .'\n organised attempt, we believe, has never been 
made to face this difficulty. Vested interests are so power- 
ful, prejudice and bigotry so strong, that in the past it might 
well have been declared impossible. But we have learned 
in these years no reform is impossible, if it be carried 
out with energy, courage, and determination. There is 
no real reason, heavy though the task would be, why, under 
.skilful organisation, a chartered accountants' statement 
could not be prepared of the total revenues of the Church of 
England, and a plan devised for their legislative readjust- 
ment in accordance with the needs of the age. If disendow- 
ment is to come, the Church of England could at least assert 
that it had endeavoured to employ the money at its disposal 
to the best purpose. It cannot say that to-day. 
* * * 
Only the other day the Bishop of London publicly declared 
that the total of his private means was £100, which he had 
earned by writing a book. Yet the emoluments of Fulham 
Palace are £10,000 a year, almost as much — not quite — as 
the fees of an Attorney-General. But merely because this 
big sum represent^ ^hese emoluments and the needs of the 
diocese are urgent, beyond the bare cost of living the 
Bishop does not feel justified in touching a penny. But if 
the work of the Church requires this readjustment, the duty 
of effecting it should not be left to the individual ; it is most 
unfair on him ; the adjustment should be made by the Church 
in its corporate capacity. We have only referred to the 
See of London as an illustration of our meaning and because 
the facts are well known, but this inequity of stipends exists 
in some form or other in every diocese ; it is one of the -worst 
weaknesses of the Church, of England, and a scandal which 
its lay members find most difficult to refute. 
* * * 
The Ministry of Reconstruction, though almost, if not 
quite, the youngest of our new Departments, has got well 
into harness. Apart from, "finding" themselves, they had 
set up as early as December last eighty-seven separate 
committees of inquiry into as many phases of national 
activity, and this number is still being added to. Some of 
them have already presented their reports, while others have 
issued interim reports ; there is thus rapidly accumulating 
such a mass of literature representing the considered opinion 
of the members of these committees as will soon overwhelm 
not only the various departments of Government concerned, 
but those members of the public who endeavour to keep 
themselves informed on matters of national welfare. Though 
particular individuals seem to be put on to too many 
committees and here and there one is overweighted by 
departmental officials, which tends to too much theorising 
and to abstract conclusions. 
* * * 
But the Minister of Reconstruction is not the only parent 
of committees, A White Paper gives a fist of 267 commis- 
sions, committees, or special branches of departments, "set 
up to deal with public questions arising out of the war," 
34 of which had ceased to exist when the paper was pub- 
lished, and a few of which are also included among the 
87 children of the Minister of Reconstruction. Some of 
these 267 commissions are also issuing reports, and it may be 
assumed that all of them are intended to have some influence 
on reconstruction when it actually begins. 
Now, even if the general public were not too much engaged 
to follow all this Hterature it is quite certain that they could 
not digest it, and there is a very grave danger that much 
future legislation will be based upon these reports which 
may or may not be to the public advantage. A report 
presented by a Committee, mainly composed of Government 
officials, for instance, may be a 'masterly piece of abstract 
work, cleverly constructed, and full of excellent theoretical 
arguments ; but when translated into an Act of Parliament 
it may easily become irritating^and inequitable. 
