LAND &> WATER 
November 21, 1918 
right or wrong 3-et propounded. And so the sea war ends 
with the tie between the fleet, and merchant service, and nation 
closer and more intensely affectionate than it has ever been. 
The Bully on His Belly 
"When Germany's sea record is remembered ; when we 
mourn the many tliousands foully murdered in the sea ser- 
vice of ourselves and our allies ; when we look at the grim 
depletion of our tonnage — just when the demand for tonnage 
for demobilising the forces and reconstructing the damage 
of war will be at its highest — it must surely seem very 
singular that the allied governments should not have set 
out, as a first condition of granting Germany an armistice, 
that the enemy should repair — so far as he could — the damage 
done at sea ; should not, therefore, as a necessary condition 
to any relief from attack, have included the immediate sur- 
render of the German merchant marine. It has been pointed 
out in these columns, not once but many times, that such 
shipping as Germany possesses can hardly make good more 
than one-third of the damage done. If it were handed over 
to Great Britain in its entirety, it would- — even after our 
heroic efforts to maintain our shipping while maintaining 
our sea-fighting strength — hardly put our tonnage where 
it was before the war. Wiat makes the omission still more 
amazing are, first, that the Allies have conceded the prin- 
ciple that either during the armistice or certainly while peace 
is being discussed, they will voluntarily undertake part of 
the provisioning of the defeated Germans ;j secondly, that 
restitution is an admitted principle of peace. There is no 
reminder that the food shortage of the world is largely due 
to the countless cargoes of meat and bread stuffs now rotting 
at the bottom of the sea. Is it too late to suggest that this 
omission should be made good without delay ? 
The enemy at least is not backward in affording the 
opportunity. Day after day the whimper goes out that 
Germany must be fed, or perish in red revolution. But, 
thanks to the regime which Scheidemann, Solf and Co. so 
slavishly supported, other peoples, and those in no sense 
responsible either for the war or its outrageous atrocities, 
are in no better case. Germany may indeed be on the verge 
of famine, but it would be perfectly consistent with the 
German character to scream this out when it was altogether 
false. The Government of Berlin consists of the ex-Kaiser's 
henchmen, theorists inexperienced in the task of govern- 
ment, and utterly unused to being responsible either for their 
actions or their words. In stepping into their late master's 
shoes, a sedulous aping of their ways would come naturally. 
The situation does not justify the mailed fist blustering of 
a few years ago. The bully is on his back, and they cannot 
play the part as if he were on his feet. But they seem to 
play the part of the bully on his belly to admiration. First 
bluster, then collapse ; now they turn and grovel. The 
first character was not very terrifying ; the second not very 
edifying. The third is simply nauseating. If the Germans 
are to be fed, let them first volunteer the beginnings of 
restitution. Let them begin where their crimes have been 
most flagrant and destructive. Let them give up their ships 
Labour and Peace Terms: By John Murray 
FROM time to time in the last four years claims 
have been made on behalf of Labour to a specific 
and direct voice in various war questions com- 
prising, for instance, overtures for peace, formal 
negotiations, and the substance of the treaties 
wliich may eventually be concluded. These claims have 
failed, on the whole, to attract general attention or to win 
the support of the public, and this for several reasons. In 
propounding their claims, the Labour organisations have 
shown less adroitness, and less power of selection, than 
could have been wished in view of the reasonableness of 
much of what they ask. Their more extravagant and aca- 
demic claims have been made the most of by their opponents. 
The Press has not been very sympathetic. Thus the public 
has gathered vaguely that Labour was making trouble by 
asking for the wrong things, or, at least, by asking too much 
and at the wrong time. And now Labour (see the Times 
of November 14th) has tabled its "international" policy in 
a few trenchant paragraphs. These will make many siib 
their eyes and protest again. But they ought, as well, to 
provoke thought. 
The recent history of this policy in England is worth our 
glancing back at, in the general intention of bringing out the 
reasonable basis of a good part of it. Thus at the conference 
of the General Federations of Trade Unions of the Allied 
Countries held at Leeds in July, 1916, Mr. Ben Cooper said 
"if Capitalism was going to lay down tariff conditions and 
conditions favourable for the protection of itself against the 
international supremacy of Germany . . . Labour also should 
be equally as determined, so far as the Allied Powers were 
concerned, to see that any regulations which they wanted 
to impose on their own Governments for the purpose of 
assimilating industrial conditions and preventing the unfair 
competition existing were arrived at, in the same way as 
the capitalists had arrived at their decisions, before the 
terms of peace were discussed." Those were the days of 
the Paris Resolutions. Military victory and the launching 
of the idea of a League of Nations have presumably modified 
the capitalist plans referred to by Mr. Cooper ; but they can 
only have strengthened his argument for Labour. At the 
same conference Mr. John Ward said : " We must insist on 
having some say, and we must use every means by which 
we can combine our forces to elevate those who are slightly 
lower in the social scale, to give greater opportunities to 
some of our Allies for free development." Mr. W. A. Appleton 
brought the discussion down to details : " While the pro- 
gramme set forth by the French may appear to be a very 
modest one in Great Britain (where we already have the 
Saturday half-holiday, Sunday rest, laws regulating the 
labour of women and children, and an understanding in 
respect of the length of the working day), yet, looking at it 
from the broader point of view, it is important. It would 
be of immense value to Russia, France, and Italy if these 
laws could be internationalised." The views embodied in 
the above quotations were adopted by the conference. 
In August, 1916, Mr. Appleton, as secretary of the General 
Federation of Trade Unions, formally submitted to Mr. 
Asquith, who was then Prime Minister, a statement of 
"international" policy which contained matter of some 
interest. Thus in 1904 France and Italy signed what was 
perhaps the first Labour treaty. This treaty provided, 
among other things, for 
1. Facilities for the transfer of savings banks deposits. 
2. Facilities for the payment of contributions and the 
payment of benefits from national pension funds. 
3. The inter-State operation of insurance against accidents 
in employment 
4. The title of subjects of either country to unemployment 
insurance. 
5. The protection of minors in industry. 
The gist of the document is as follows : " The Management 
Committee respectfully suggest that you, as Prime Minister 
of Great Britain, should bring before your colleagues in the 
Cabinet the desirability of discussing with the Governments 
of Allied Powers the possibility of agreements dealing inter- 
nationally with the labour of women and children, of night 
work, weekly rest days, and the maximum length of the 
work day, both for hazardous and non-hazardous occupations. 
You are also asked to use your influence and power to pro- 
mote the appointment of an Allied Commission of Inquiry- 
into the laws of hygiene and safety, and the best methods of 
applying these industrially and socially. Railways, ships, 
docks, and mines offer immediate opportunities for the 
adoption of automatic and other aids to safety, and an 
arrangement should be made for a common struggle against 
industrial poisons, dangerous processes, and illnesses per- 
taining to occupations. And further on it is recorded that 
"the Management Committee has recently conferred with 
representative leaders of workmen from Belgium, France, 
and Italy, and in these countries working-class opinion is 
strongly in favour of ameliorative Labour legislation - on 
international lines, with agreements incorporated in treaties, 
framed prior to or in connection with the treaties that end 
in peace." At another conference of the same organisations, 
held in London in September^ 1917, M. Jouhaux (general 
secretary of the Confederation Generale du Travail) moved 
a resolution containing this clause among others: "That 
social progress shall be effective and international, and shall 
fully realise the conclusion that "the worker is a citizen of the 
world." The resolution was passed unanimously. 
Still another conference, the Inter-Allied Labour and 
Socialist Conference, which met in London in February, 
1918, emphasised among its war aims "the need for an 
international agreement for the enforcement in all countries 
