are thus driven to contemplate the possibility of proportional disarmament by means of voluntary arrangements between existing States.

CHAPTER IX.

OF PROPORTIONAL DISARMAMENT.

A general treaty for such proportionate and simultaneous reductions of armies and fleets as would leave the relative importance of existing States and the so-called balance of power unchanged, has all along been a favourite scheme of the Peace Society. It is a portion of their programme, in which the peace party do not stand alone, and which, if separated from the rest of it, would probably meet with far wider acceptance than has been extended to that programme as a whole. Mr Richard, in the very able paper on the subject which he read to the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, in 1879, quoted a passage from a speech by Sir Robert Peel, in which he pointed out, as clearly as has ever been done by Mr Richard himself, the futility, even for purposes of national defence, of the multiplication of national forces which has been proceeding at so prodigious a rate since his day. "Is not the time come," said Sir Robert, "when the powerful countries of Europe should reduce those military armaments which they have so sedulously raised? What is the advantage of one Power greatly increasing its army and navy? Does it not see

Mr

that if it possesses such increase for self-protection and defence, the other Powers will follow its example? The consequence of this state of things must be that no increase of relative strength will accrue to any one Power, but there must be a universal consumption of the resources of every country in military preparation. The true interest of Europe is to come to some common accord, so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war, rather than of peace. I do wish that the councils of every country, or if the councils will not, that the public mind and voice would willingly propagate such a doctrine."1 Richard further reminds us that, on the occasion of Mr Cobden's motion in the House of Commons on the subject in 1851, Lord Palmerston expressed himself to the same effect; and that in 1859, Lord Beaconsfield exclaimed," Go to the Emperor of France, and say to him, 'Prove by the diminution of your armaments that you are sincerely anxious for the peace of Europe, and the world, and we will join you in the spirit of reciprocal confidence. Let us terminate this disastrous system of wild expenditure, by mutually agreeing, with no hypocrisy, but in a manner and under circumstances which will admit of no doubt, by the reduction of armaments, that peace is really our policy.' Mr Richard and his friends of the Peace Society went to the Emperor of the French, but neither Lord Beaconsfield nor the English Government went along with them; and when, in 1863, the Emperor did actually propose a Congress of all the European States, with the view, amongst other things, of bringing about a reduction of 2 Ib., p. 9.

"2

1 International Reduction of Armaments, p. 8.

armaments, "It is known that this proposal for a Con gress failed, principally through the opposition of England; though in the opinion of the late Lord Derby, 'If there was a country in all Europe that had less interest in sending a blank refusal to have anything to do with the Congress, it was England.'" 1

Such expressions of opinion as these, taken along with the widespread sympathy which Mr Richard's labours have evoked in France, and Belgium, and Italy, and even in Germany, seem to warrant the hope that the realisation of some scheme of mutual disarmament, more or less extensive, may lie in the not distant future. If the game of "beggar-my-neighbour,” which is at present being played between France and Germany, is much longer persevered in, and the stream of emigration which it produces continues to flow so unequally, it is not improbable that Germany may find in such disarmament her last remaining weapon of defence. Sooner or later, a treaty of disarınament is certain to be negotiated, and whatsoever nation gets the start of the others in making the proposal to reduce, as Bentham said, "will crown itself with everlasting honour." 2 The real and permanent obstacle to international organisation seems to lie in the danger of rearmament. The moment that a casus belli, whether real or imaginary, presented itself to an individual State, no treaty, however solemnly negotiated, would restrain it from arming in its own behalf; and we know from the experience of the American Civil War, with what facility vast armies may be extemporised by peaceful communities. Unless a substitute for separate action 1 International Reduction of Armaments, p. 10. 2 Ante, p. 226.

DISARMAMENT AND ORGANISATION INSEPARABLE.

249

can be found, separate action must continue; and it is for this reason that the questions of international disarmament and of international organisation appear to me to act and react on each other at every point and in every direction. They may be realised in conjunction but not separately. When such a scheme of international organisation has been devised as would afford to individual States a trustworthy guarantee that the honest objects for which standing armies are maintained beyond what is necessary for municipal purposes would be attained without them, then, and not till then, honest States may be expected to contemplate their reduction.

What, then, are the honest objects for which civilised nations throw away their blood and treasure with so lavish a hand, and to what extent is their attainment possible by less costly means? These objects, as it seems to me, may be reduced to three,-national security; the civilisation of barbarous races under the guardianship of advanced nations; and the recognition by other nations of national progress already effected, even when such recognition implies a change in the relation between the more progressive nation and other nations, and a consequent shifting of the so-called balance of power. Let us consider these objects seriatim.

1st, National security.-Inasmuch as a proportional diminution of the forces of individual States would leave their relative forces unchanged, any international organisation which made them mutually responsible for each other's security against external violence would, in so far as it was operative, be an addition to the national guarantees which they receive

from their own forces. Should the international organisation break down, each State would be exactly in the relative position in which it was before; and, whilst it stood, the State would have two guarantees for its security in place of one. The risk of overthrow from a coalition of its enemies, from which even the greatest State is not free under existing circumstances, would, at any rate, be diminished. The exceptional strength of our navy, for example, would remain undiminished were all the navies of Europe reduced proportionally, whilst the protection which we derive from it would be increased in proportion to the diminution in the risk of maritime warfare which was effected by the existence of the international government. With a navy a tenth part of the size of that which we at present maintain, relatively we should be as much in a condition as ever to fight, whilst the chances of our being called upon to fight would be less than they now are. Small States, again, would not be in the continual danger of absorption which they are at present. In their case self-defence is always impossible; and to them the new guarantee could scarcely fail to be an important addition to the love and favour-I fear we must rather say to the mutual jealousies of the greater States on which their present existence depends. In conjunction with a scheme of international organisation, then, no valid objection to the experiment of such a diminution of national forces as to render international organisation possible could, as it seems, be reasonably urged in behalf of national security.

2d, The government and civilisation of barbarous or semibarbarous communities.-This being in reality a municipal