I.

Aspiring as we do to leadership in the thought of a growing generation we pay too little attention to the national and important questions that constantly arise in which we as individuals will in due course find ourselves involved. On these questions we should be able to make decisions that our fellow citizens would recognise were based on our opportunities for informed and rational thinking.

These considerations prompt me to make some observations on the subject recently debated here "That this house will fight for King and Country." In the course of the debate various opinions were given, but argument centred chiefly around aspects that, to my mind, failed to come to the heart of the question. We are all convinced that war is an atrocity, a crime upon civilisation, with its waste and ultimate uselessness. That conviction, however, is not, not will it ever be, the answer to the question whether we as citizens of the British Empire will fight for our country if there comes a call to arms.

There are two aspects of the question, the ethical and the practical. It is upon the practical that the question becomes difficult. The individual must square his idealism with the needs of his fellows. He must decide whether the culture and mutual trusts that go with group organisation shall be risked against the adherence to an ideal that has nothing to preserve it but an appeal to the good intentions of an opponent.

I do not believe in the militaristic ideal, nor can military aggression be approved. Imperialistic campaigning stands condemned. All the Powers have outlawed war as an instrument of national policy. Only one nation has argued itself out of the disavowal. I stand with those who support the League of Nations as a medium for settling international differences by peaceful means. Although its machinery at present may be inadequate to give full effect to its decisions it still remains an organisation through which nations can be diverted from warlike actions.

The fact that most of the nations of the world have subscribed to the League covenant, and a large number are represented in the Kellogg Pact, reveals that the peoples of the world in the main desire to avoid war and to place their relationships upon a basis of international co-operation. The debate covered these points, but on practical grounds left the problem for the individual unsolved. The imaginary example of an assault upon the debater's sister was invoked as a factor that should decide the issue for the individual. This appeal to chivalry has become rather thread-bare, and as the act and the onlooker's response would both be the product of primitive impulse the argument is one that should not appeal to a group of rational students. Apart from this there were very few reasons advanced to support the categorical statement that those in favour of the motion would "Fight for King and Country."

On the other side many were the accusations of cowardice levelled at the conscientious objector. This method of argumentum ad hominem can be discarded as not materially affecting the issue.

Personally I am inclined to the view that in the present period of evolution in human affairs the state of eternal peace is a purely Utopian ideal. Something more than mere resolutions of absolute pacifism is required to place international differences upon a satisfactory basis. It was contended that the only method of securing the prevention of war was the determination of all people that, under no circumstances, would they take up arms against another State. However, so long as a single Power in the world stands aloof from such determination the possibility of warfare and military aggression has to be considered and our duty in defence of a just cause recognised.

In all the later treaties for the abolition of war the right is either expressly or tacitly reserved to take up arms in the cause of national honour and in a matter vital to national independence. This being so, the question resolves itself immediately into one of whether the individual will recognise the call to arms upon the complete failure of all pacific means of settling a dispute.

page 45

I would not avail myself of any of the false sentiments engendered in the public mind at times of national excitement by the indiscriminate dissemination of militaristic propaganda, but I do suggest that the privileges and freedom we as citizens of the British Commonwealth of Nations enjoy, impose on us—should the occasion arise—a corresponding duty to defend those privileges and that freedom when required to do so.

Civil administration provides an analogy. Is is sufficient that a section of the community resolves not to use force toward a certain other section—the criminal class? Would this make for peace and protect our civil rights? Obviously not, for our security, and the very restraining power of the law, arise from the expectation of retribution to follow deliberate disregard of the code. The same applies in the society of nations.

In conclusion let me only say this, that if it is cowardly to be afraid at the prospect of a torn and mangled body—of a deranged mind—of the indescribable horror, and suffering that follow the spectre of Mars; if it is cowardly, above all things, to be afraid at the prospect of being the instrument by which such torture will be inflicted upon another human being—though an enemy in name —then I am a coward. But: can we of Victoria College remain in comparative comfort and security while our fellows suffer?

A.B.C