to entail in spheres not primarily or not exclusively economic, or by a diffused and bounteous humanitarianism of not less insecure foundations.
We must never forget that any movement of this character—and there are more than one in our midst, and there are likely to be more still—must proceed with some approximation to equal step and equal weight in the several leading States, if it is not to carry with it grave misfortune for that State which outruns the rest in its trust and confidence in men and humanity. Neither for means nor for ends is it specially called for in Britain. For the means it advocates it may contain elements of good for a State—a State, let us say, strongly organized and mechanically efficient—which does not yet know the parliamentary system, knows not responsibility of ministers to Parliament, knows not democracy. Nor for its declared end—a better and more stable international understanding—is any appeal, justifying such movement, specially required in Britain. The highest interest of Britain for herself and for the Empire has been known to be—was too well known to be—peace; and in future her interest will still be peace, but without a slothful overtrust. She can enter in spirit into a true League of Nations, even without requiring to be attached to it by compliance with prescribed and rigid forms; and no League of Nations, for unity and concord, can have being by mechanism chiefly and without the disposition that is requisite to give it life.
But if we in Britain do modify, as we shall and already have begun[1] to modify, the kind of indirect national control which has prevailed with us, this we shall do wisely by imparting to it greater breadth, a larger representative character, a character truer to the facts, a stronger vitality. We shall make it representative not of the British at home only, but of the whole British
- ↑ See Appendix, pp. 282–4.
