contribution shall be paid out of the taxes of those colonies to defray the expenses of the war undertaken by England herself. But, as they have not voted it, how are they to be induced, as time goes on, to pay it? A similar system has often tempted human cupidity, and with the same results. The despot has for a time collected the tribute, but has never attached the tributary to himself. The power of resistance has indeed differed according to the courage and circumstances of the tributaries. But in the present case England is dealing with free and fierce people. She has to reflect that South Africa is neither Egypt nor India; and its white inhabitants, Dutch and not Dutch, are of European origin, inheriting the principles of free men. If they are made tributary to the English Parliament, in which they have not, and cannot have, votes, they will not only hate England, but will lie in wait to free themselves from the tribute which they have not voted and from the Power which has imposed it against their will.

In short, Sir, England may make the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies pay for the war; but to make a man pay is not the way to make him a friend.

RUSSIAN POLICY AND CONSTITUTIONAL
RESPECT

On March 15, 1917, as a result of a revolution in St. Petersburg, the
Tsar Nicholas II of Russia abdicated. A Provisional Government
was formed consisting of an Executive Committee of the Duma (or
Russian Parliament), with Prince Lvoff as Liberal Prime Minister.
In July M. Kerensky became Prime Minister of a Government of
Moderate Socialists. On November 7 Lenin and Trotsky carried
out a second revolution, and inaugurated the Bolshevik régime.
On March 3, 1918, the Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Peace of
Brest-Litovsk with Germany and Austria. In August, British and
French troops were landed at Archangel. They were withdrawn in
September 1919.

In the summer of 1920 war was in progress between Soviet Russia and Poland; Bolshevik armies were successfully advancing upon Warsaw. There was a question of Great Britain re-entering the Russian theatre of war in favour of Poland, and on August 10 a debate on this question took place in the House of Commons. The Labour Party formed a Council of Action', which passed a resolution against any form of military or naval intervention against Soviet Russia. If the Government undertook such a policy, resistance was to be made through direct action', i.e. by any and every form of 'withdrawal of labour which circumstances may require' (August 13). On August 16-18 the Poles defeated and drove back the Bolshevik armies outside Warsaw at the Battle of the Vistula. Mr. Lloyd George later stated that the British Government had made up its mind, independently of the Council of Action, not to intervene in the Polo-Russian War; indeed his speech previously made in the House of Commons, on August 10, proved this (see next letter).

FROM The Times, AUGUST 10, 1920.

It is only natural that we should hate as well as dread Bolshevism, sympathize with the sufferings of the Poles, and long to help them against Russia. But Politics ought to be conducted, not by feeling, but by reason directed to the good of our own country, which is sick of war, disappointed that its vision of eternal peace after war has turned out a delusion, worn out by taxes, distracted with its difficulties, economical, social, and political, uncertain of its future, and at its wit's end how to feed itself and to warm itself properly in the coming winter, how to protect its persons and their property, how to have and to hold a good government of its own people.

Before the war, during the war, and since the war, trade unionism, guided by its leaders and assisted by demagogues, has more and more undermined the rights of liberty, property, and contract, which are, and have been for centuries, the real basis of the prosperity, justice, and happiness of this country. It was encouraged by the present Prime Minister, from the outset of his office, to practise audacity and to make a new world. Under the name of reconstruction, and by means of State

control, which advances nearer and nearer to Socialism, it has through the arbitration of the State extracted higher and higher wages without earning them and without gratitude to the employers who have to pay. It has altered not only the circumstances and the actions, but also the moral character of the workpeople of this country into arrogance and the injustice of claiming as a one-sided right what morally and lawfully is a mutual right of contract. In consequence, it is bringing the business of the country nearly to a standstill, and, if it chose, it could stop it altogether; and it could also stop the government of this country.

This absolute trade unionism is now entering on a new phase of might without right. It is striking not only against private owners, but also against the State itself. It is well on its way to becoming perforce the de facto Government of this country. The Prime Minister does not seem to see that he encourages this process by the constant and undignified familiarity with which he received Mr. Thomas and others in deputation, and in negotiations which usually begin with declaring that he will ne'er consent and end with his consenting-to the pecuniary advantage of trade unionism, but to the disadvantage of everything else. Parliament, too, seems unaware how defenceless it really is, and that, as in Russia the Duma was set aside by the Soviet and the Bolshevists, so in this country the Houses of Lords and Commons may be superseded by the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party Conference, and then by Bolshevism at last.

At this dangerous moment comes the present crisis. While the nation is heartily sick of war, trade unionism is positively opposed to war against Russia. Moreover, if, unfortunately, the Government were to drift into this war, the organization of trade unionism is so complete and so powerful that

F f

it could stop the war, whenever it pleases, simply by striking, by preventing the Government from sending supplies, and by refusing to allow workpeople to enlist in the war. With its people exhausted, with its most respectable classes at least lukewarm, with the trade unions actually opposed, it would be madness for the Government to go

to war.

The Secretary of State for War, Mr. Churchill, after rightly contending that the present state of things is all the fault of the Russian Bolshevists, says: "My sole object has been, and will be, to keep such hateful foreign oppressions far from our native land.' But a war for Poland against Russia could not produce this effect. If England were to join France in sending an expedition into the Baltic, and invade the country occupied by the Russian Bolshevists, she would find herself confronted with the international trade unions of Europe. Now, trade unionism is not Bolshevism; but it is similar to it, and to some extent in sympathy with its end, though not quite so aggressive in its means. Hence, if provoked, international trade unionism might easily become international Bolshevism. Similarly, British trade unionism, if provoked, might as readily follow suit. Hence, to fight for Poland, would not be to stop the Bolshevism of Russia, nor to keep the waves of Bolshevism from breaking on our native shores, any more than the ancient Celts could battle with the sea, or Canute withstand its flowing tide. To go to war with Russia would not destroy but extend Bolshevism. In any case, it would embitter the already strained relations between this country and this trade unionist workpeople, who, however, could reasonably complain of having to go through the sufferings and risks of the late war over again, and might even be joined in their protest by many of their countrymen who are not trade unionists.

Many other things might be said on this subject— on the deficiency of the pecuniary resources which are sinews of war, on the proverbial difficulty of invading Russia, and on the traditional Russian policy of attacking the British Empire in the East, formerly encouraged by Bismarck in order to divert Russia from attacking Germany, and only temporarily suspended during the late alliance of Russia with France and England in the war. During this alliance it became easy to blockade Germany in the North Sea and the Baltic; but the alliance is now at an end, and within her vast circumference Russia has too many openings, by land as well as by sea in Europe and Asia, to be all stopped by blockade. Important as these considerations seem to be, the main thing now to consider is that our country is not in a condition, economical or social or political, to undertake another war. The plain duty of Great Britain is to set its own house in order; and to make a beginning, I beg to refer to the plea of the Marquess of Salisbury, reported in The Times of to-day, for the establishment of a great constitutional party, based on the principles of respect for law and order, for morals and religion, and for the rights of the individual.

Corpus Christi College, Oxford, August 9, 1920.

NEAR EAST CRISIS

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY REVIEWED

ATTITUDE OF TRADE UNIONS

After the Armistice with Turkey, October 30, 1918, Constantinople was occupied by the Allies. The Treaty of Sèvres with Turkey was signed on August 10, 1920, but was never ratified by the Turkish Government.

The Greek Government undertook to enforce the Treaty of Sèvres, and prosecuted a campaign in Asia Minor. The Greek army, however, was routed by the Turks under Mustafa Kemal at Afium Karahissar on August 26, 1922. The victorious Turks then