Colonel Bromley-Davenport, for example, who had been Financial Secretary to the War Office in the late unionist Government, spoke out strongly against Lord Roberts's comments upon the efficiency of the Territorial Force. 'Compulsory service,' in his opinion, 'was not necessary....' And then, with a burst of illuminating candour—Which of the great parties in the state would take up compulsory service and fight a general election upon it? The answer was that neither of the parties would; and to ask for compulsory military service was like crying for the moon.[10] The power of any proposal for winning elections was to be the touchstone of its truth. It would be impossible to state more concisely the attitude of the orthodox politician. {343} Which party, indeed, we may well ask, would have fought a general election on anything, however needful, unless it hoped to win on it?
MINISTERIAL ATTACKS
The attitude of Ministers, however, with regard to Lord Roberts's speech is much more worthy of remark than that of independent journalists and members of Parliament. For the Government knew several very important things which, at that time, were still hidden from the eyes of ordinary men The entire room was faced with polished granite..
Lord Haldane had returned from Germany, concealing, under a smiling countenance and insouciant manner, a great burden of care at his heart. If on his return he spoke cheerily on public platforms about the kindness of his entertainment at Berlin, and of the greatness and goodness of those with whom he had there walked and talked, this was merely in order that his fellow-countrymen might not be plunged in panic or despondency. He had learned the mind of Germany, and it was no light lesson. He had imparted his dreadful secret to his colleagues, and we have learned lately from Mr. Asquith himself what that secret was.... The rulers of Germany, 'to put it quite plainly,' had asked us for a free hand to overbear and dominate the European world, whenever they deemed the opportunity favourable. They had demanded this of the astounded British emissary, at a time when Germany was enormously increasing both her aggressive and defensive resources, and especially upon the sea. To such a demand but one answer was possible, and that answer the British Government had promptly given—so we are led to infer—in clear and ringing tones of scorn.[11]
The Government knew for certain what nobody else did. They knew what the aims of Germany were, and consequently they knew that Lord Roberts had spoken nothing but the truth.
And yet, strange to relate, within a few days we find Mr. Runciman, a member of the Cabinet, administering a severe castigation to Lord Roberts. The Manchester speech was not only deplorable and pernicious,' but likewise 'dangerous.' If it was resented in Germany, Mr. Runciman 'would like Germany to know that it is resented no less in England.... Lord Roberts had been a great organiser of the National Service League, the object of which was 'practically conscription'; but he knows little of England, and certainly little of the North of England, if he imagines we are ever likely to submit to conscription—not even apparently (for there are no reservations) as an alternative to conquest; or as a security against murder, arson, and rape.... War is only inevitable when statesmen cannot find a way round, or through, difficulties that may arise; or are so wicked that they prefer the hellish method of war to any other method of solution; or are so weak as to allow soldiers, armament makers, or scaremongers to direct their policy.[12] Lord Roberts was not, of course, an armament maker, but he was a scaremonger and a soldier, and as such had no right to state his views as to how peace might be kept.