October 24, 1918 
LAND &? WATER 
head ; that tlie forces of this free, united, independent Repub- 
lic were tightinj2; alongside the soldiers of the British Empire 
in many a held ; tliat General Smuts was a member of the 
Imperial War Cabinet, and the most eloquent defender of 
the principle of constitutional monarchy — what inference 
could such a man draw except, first, that the Boer Republics 
had won, next, that, as enlightened and honoured conquerors, 
they had voluntariK' joined the association of free countries 
which, for excellent practical reasons, owe allegiance to the 
British Crown ? Would he not see in these events, in other 
words, not only an alliance between the late combatants, 
but the weaker "of the two in the seat of power ? The peace 
of Versailles, then, ended in the French nation pledged for 
ever to revenge ; the North and South war ended in the rebe! 
countries whole-heartedly condemning their rebellion ; the 
South African has ended with the Boers recognising the prin- 
ciple of political' equality, and Gniat Britain in applying 
that principle to South Africa so thoroughly, that its des- 
tinies are now in Boer hands. Thus a "bad" peace created 
the cause of war; and a good peace made the conquered, 
in one instance, rejoice in defeat, in another the heirs of 
victory. 
Immediate Reconciliation Not Necessary to a 
Good Peace 
Yet the defeated South and the defeated Boers at the 
moment of submission felt just as bitter resentment as did 
the French when they had to submit to Bismarck's terms. 
What is it that differentiates these cases ? Why was not 
Versailles ultimately just as happy a negation of >var as was 
Verceniging, completed by the wise statesmanship of Lord 
Elgin ? The answer is obvious. The first treaty was not 
in conformity with justice. The completed dealings of Great 
Britain with South Africa did so conform. Let us then start 
with the principle that, whether one side or both are in the 
wrong at the beginning of the war, there is no reason in the 
nature of things why the settlement after it should not result 
in a reconciliation of wills. So much at least these examples 
teach us. But they teach us something more, and it is that, 
it is no test of whether a settlement is right or wrong, that 
the conqueror and conquered should think alike when it is made. 
And from this we shaJl get the two principles to guide us in 
the peace it will be within the Allied power to enforce. The 
first is, that the peace must conform to justice. The second 
is that, while we may desire things which are unjust, the 
enemy's acceptance of our settlement is no test either way 
of its being fair or unfair. The principle that is to guide us 
must be justice as it is interpreted to us by the conscience 
of mankind — the monitor that has as its guide " the light 
that enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world." 
We must then appeal to constant and universal principles 
of right and wrong. We must assure ourselves by the maxim 
of Vincent of Lerins : " Securus judical orhis terrarum." 
There also follows a third principle from the application 
of which we must n'ot flinch. However just the terms of 
settlement, this cannot be willingly acquiesced in by all 
Germans immediately. Many will see in our terms nothing 
but a bare and merciless use of force, and simply because the 
national sense of right and wrong in Germany differs from 
ours. Some day the Germans may come to an acceptance 
of a code of right and wrong identical with the rest of the 
world and, accepting that, may acknowledge their sentence 
to be just. But till' that time comes, they must be con- 
strained, not only to carry out the tasks and sacrifices their 
own ill deeds have brought upon themselves, but so that the 
power of repeating theirxrimes is taken from them. It follows 
then for a period at least that Germany must be disarmed, 
and that her capital, communications, frontiers, fortresses 
and ports must all be occupied. This and only this will 
gi\e us the power of compelling Germany to accept and carry 
through the new order. Only so will the German conscience 
be brought to the realisation of its infidelity. 
The Terms of Peace 
Now what are the universal principles that must be applied 
in the settlement of Europe and the world's debate ? The 
old wrongs and the new must be set right. Oppressed 
people must be made free, v The evils that have followed 
from conscienceless conquest must be redressed. In part 
this simply goes back to the original conflict of wills before 
the war, and war has created new causes of conflict. It was 
in itself a new crime. It has been iparked by a succession 
of crimes abhorred and denounced by the whole civilised 
world. If there can be no security without justice, *11 the 
conditions of justice must be fulfilled. The conditions are 
simple and obvious. There must be chastisement of the 
guilty, reparation of material injury, indemnification for 
personal suffering. If justice demands these things, security 
demands further that the repetition of the crimes punished 
shall be made humanly impossible. Thus we get amongst 
others the following as the elementary conditions of peace. 
1. The complete freedom of the oppressed nations. 
2. The personal chastisement of those who, by the cult 
of frightfulness, have plunged the world into barbarities more 
cruel than the worst of savages have ever practised — the 
murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war ; the enslavement 
of civil populations ; the worse than enslavement of their 
women ; th? outrages on 'non-belligerents at sea ; the sheer lust 
of destruction shown in the destruction of sacred shrines and 
of priceless libraries and of irreplaceable works of art ; the lust, 
pillage and arson which have been pursued regardless of military 
purposes as ends in themselves. The most conspicuous of 
those who have originated and prosecuted these things 
must be made to suffer in their persons. 
3'. All stolen property must be restored, all wanton 
unjustified damage made good. The victims of all cruelty 
must be indemnified. The relatives of the murdered must 
be compensated. The detailed application of these prin- 
ciples in the form of territorial and political arrangements 
need not be elaborated, and I pass on to the specific application 
of these principles to the situation which the war at sea has 
created. 
, The Sanction of the Sea 
Here there are three matters of the utmost moment as 
to which the broad rights of the case must be left in no 
ambiguity. They are, first, the restitution due for the ton- 
nage of the world destroyed; secondly, the future of the 
German colonies ; thirdly, the future of 'submarine war. 
With these justice and commonsense require that Germany 
should receive a fair ration of sea service and raw material. 
As was said in Jhese columns last week, there must be no 
hesitation in dealing firmly and promptly with the tonnage 
question. It is the typical case of conflict in moral standards. 
Over twelve milhon tons of the world's shipping has been 
destroyed by enemy action, and practically all of it by action 
condemned by every code, national or international. It 
has been destroyed in obedience to the German belief that 
where their country can be advantaged, no treaty, no obliga- 
tion voluntarily incurred, no moral precept, shall have the 
least weight. Right up to October 6th, when Prince Max 
of Baden asked President Wilson for peace, the leading Ger- 
man papers. were publishing lying articles revelling in the 
achievements of the submarine, pointing to the alleged 
nineteen million tons of shipping it has sunk as if it were a 
great German triumph, as if these activities only had to 
continue to make Germany safe. Even Perseus — by far the 
sanest of- the German naval and patriot writers — cannot 
hold back his tribute from this stupendous result. In mere 
justice "to the magnificent work of our submarine crews" 
he must point out that no one could have imagined, that 
in the second ye&v the monthly figures of loss would still 
exceed 600,000 tons ! And he quotes, with approval. 
Admiral Scheer's message to the Reichstag: "You may tell 
the country with a good conscience, that I have not a moment's 
doubt we shall bring England to negotiate yet by means 
of our submarines." Here then is a question on which Ger- 
many is truly impenitent. I make no point of the fact 
that her submarines are still at work, that the Leinster was 
sunk before the President could answer the appeal for peace.. 
For the submarines are probabh' beyond recall. My point 
is, that here is a type case of what is involved by "justice." 
First, there must be the arraignment and trial of those 
guilty of such horrors as Fryatt's judicial murder, the out- 
rage of the Belgian Prince, the sinking of hospital ships, 
etc. Next, the cargoes lost must, at least in part, be made 
good, and certainly the families of every seaman and pas- 
senger wrongfully murdered, compensated for their loss. 
Clearly, until these moral and material debts are paid, the 
civilised world can have no §ea dealings with Germany at 
all. It goes without saying that the damage to shipping 
must be made good without delay. To the extent to which 
the tonnage now in German ports fails to make this good 
(ierman shipyards must, for so many years as are necessary, 
be devoted solely to this task. Finally, it is so to speak a 
part of the disarmament of Germany, not only that every 
submarine shall be surrendered, but that every shipyard, 
arsenal and engineering shop that can be used for making 
submarines should be kept under close Allied supervision. 
I put these sea questions first and call them type questions, 
because the injury here is not one solely against Great Britain, 
but is an outrage upon the world. The declaration of ruth- 
lessncss was a declaration of war against all countries ; and 
