DR. LYTTELTON AND GERMANY

      AN UNNECESSARY SERMON

      30 March 1915

      SIR,—HAS NOT A LITTLE too much been made of the address of the Headmaster of Eton? It seems a well-meant effort to do what is not necessary—viz., to stir in Englishmen feelings of moderation as regards Germany. As a matter of fact, throughout the whole of the war, we have been remarkable for the calmness with which we have taken the actions of our enemies and for the extremely reasonable attitude of speakers and of the Press on the subjects at issue.

      Dr. Lyttelton has not lived as many years in Germany as I have done, and he cannot remember Prussia at the time of the Franco-Prussian War. He seems under the impression that only in recent years has there been feeling against England on the part of Germany. I can remember July, 1870, when it was not easy for an English boy even to walk along the streets of some German towns without being hooted and having distinctly unpleasant statements hurled at one. For one or two days in that month we were popular, because an idea prevailed that we were going to join Germany; then for a day or two we were unpopular, because it was said we were going to join France. After that time we were thoroughly disliked, because we decided to remain neutral. The dislike for England dates back certainly to that period and has never been lost. Dr. Lyttelton assumes that we are to take the German view of ourselves as being correct, and that because they have a particular view we are to take up an attitude of weakness in order that we may “save 60,000,000 people from the ruin of a poisoned mind.” One thing is certain—we shall never do that by showing any weakness. Only the other day we were told that our kindly treatment of German prisoners meant that we were afraid of what would happen at the end of the war. Germany is not at the present time able to see with unprejudiced eyes anything like generosity of action. I am perfectly satisfied that the one thing we must do now is to bring Germany to her knees, and to show her that the ideals which have been hers ever since Prussia became the dominant power in Germany are unworthy and lead to disaster.

      Of course, I would go further myself, and I would say this—that England, having been placed in a position in which she can, through her naval power, to a very large extent lay down the principles in international life, should now accept the responsibility, ensure for the future that her wishes shall be carried out, and secure for her great Allies and herself relief from the constant strain of knowing that there is a Power accumulating every conceivable strength in order to foist upon nations principles alien entirely to the spirit of Christ. There seems to be in some people nowadays the idea that Christianity means a weak application of what is called the principle of Christian charity, but there is a forgetfulness that Christ advised strict dealing with, and strict punishment for, national unworthiness.

      Frankly, I think our duty at the present time is not so much to consider how to behave when peace comes as how we are to gain the victory which will bring peace. At any rate, one would beg public men to whom the curious twists in the German mind are not well known to refrain from rather dangerous suggestions at the present time. Dr. Lyttelton’s address was meant well, but when read in Germany will only form the text in a great many places for suggestions that we are beginning to weaken and are prepared to give Germany very good terms.

      Yours faithfully,

      H. R. BIRMINGHAM

      TO GOLFERS

      6 April 1915

      SIR,—MAY I TRESPASS upon your kindness to allow me to call the attention of those who take their cars to golf to take wounded soldiers from one of the hospitals with them and give them luncheon and tea? They will be more than repaid by the gratefulness of our wounded heroes.

      Yours truly,

      ONE WHO HAS TRIED IT

      MR. LLOYD GEORGE ON DRINK

      9 April 1915

      SIR,—I OBSERVE FROM a report in the papers that Mr. Keir Hardie, addressing an Independent Labour meeting at Norwich, stated that workers who were putting in 84 hours a week had been “maligned and insulted and the lying word—on the authority of Mr. Lloyd George—had gone round the world that the British working classes were a set of drunken wasters.”

      I need hardly say that there is not a word of truth in this wild accusation. I have only made two references to the effect of drinking upon the output of munitions of war. Speaking at Bangor on February 28, I said:—

      “Most of our workmen are putting every ounce of strength into this urgent work for their country, loyally and patriotically. But that is not true of all. There are some, I am sorry to say, who shirk their duty in this great emergency. I hear of workmen in armaments works who refuse to work a full week’s work for the nation’s need. What is the reason? They are a minority. The vast majority belong to a class we can depend upon. The others are a minority. But you must remember a small minority of workmen can throw a whole works out of gear. What is the reason? Sometimes it is one thing, sometimes it is another; but let us be perfectly candid. It is mostly the lure of the drink. They refuse to work full time, and when they return their strength and efficiency are impaired by the way in which they have spent their leisure. Drink is doing us more damage in the war than all the German submarines put together.”

      I call special attention to the italicized passages. I went out of my way to make it clear that in my judgment drink only affected a minority, even a small minority, of the workmen, and that the vast majority were doing their duty loyally. So that as far as the first speech I delivered on the subject is concerned there is not a syllable to justify Mr. Keir Hardie’s reckless assertion, but quite the reverse.

      Now I come to my second reference to this topic. It was on the occasion of the deputation received by me from the Shipbuilding Employers’ Federation. The shipbuilders made it clear repeatedly that their complaints were confined to a section of the men. As one of them put it:—“There are many men doing good work, probably as good work as the men in the trenches.” In my speech in reply I said that the excessive drinking took place “among a section, may be a small section, but a very important section of workmen.” Neither in one speech nor the other was any reflection cast upon the men who, according to Mr. Keir Hardie, are working 84 hours a week. On the contrary, the complaint was against the men who failed at this critical time to put in anything approaching even 53 hours a week. On both occasions the work of those who were doing their best to help their country in this time of urgent need was fully recognized not only by me but by the employers, and I made it clear that my criticism was confined entirely to a minority and may be a small minority of the workmen.

      I hope that after this explanation Mr. Keir Hardie will think it right to withdraw a statement which he must know must be very mischievous in its effect at a time when we are considering the best remedy for the serious limitation in output which is, at any rate, partly attributable to excessive drinking amongst a section of the workmen. He was, I believe, a supporter of temperance legislation for Scotland. His support was not due to any conviction that his fellow-countrymen were a nation of “drunken wasters,” but to his knowledge that a minority were so completely subdued by the drink habit that nothing but strong legislative action would enable the community either to protect them or protect itself against injury done to the state by them.

      The difficulties are great enough without adding to them by exciting prejudices so easily excited when there is a suspicion of an attack being made upon a whole class of workmen. No such attack was intended—no such attack was made. On the contrary, the vast majority of the workmen engaged in the production of munitions of war were specifically excluded from any suggestion of excessive drinking that was made. The trouble is, however, that the drinking habits of the minority have the effect of diminishing—and seriously diminishing—the output of war material at a time when the success of the Allies depends entirely on that material being largely increased. The evidence upon which the