WORLD'S SUPREME NEED.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 297, 13 December 1917, Page 5

WORLD'S SUPREME NEED.

PEACE ON DTJRABI/E BASIS. WHAT GERMANY MUST UEABN. ' I/ONDON, December 12. Iα a speech at Birmingham, Mr H. H. Asquith touched on peace terms and war aims. He said History would ask, Wes it worth Britain's -while to enter the war? He answered tmdoubtingly "Yes," but only provided the war ended in- a peace securing the attainment of Britain's original purposes and containing itself safeguards of ite own permanence. Such a peace tvae the I world's supreme need. There was no greater enemy to humanity than anyone who, by word or act, made it more difficult to achieve peace. Referring to lord lensdownc'S recent letter, Mr Asquith paid a tribute to the writer's patriotism. He (Mr Asguith) had no personal knowledge of the letter til! it was published and no responsibility for its terms. Much criticism had arisen owing to reading into the letter ineanings and intentions he did not understand it to convey. He thought [Tjord Uansdowne's main argument -was that the Allies, while warring- vigorously land purposefully, ehould make increasingly clear to the world that their own war aims -were rational and unselfish, and that by the attainment of them we might I look for durable peace, safeguarded by ■ the conjoint authority of an international league. Even now there was abundant evidence that enemy peoples were kept iin the dark regarding the Allies' real purposes, both for war and peace. The Allies ehould do what they could to raise the veil and let in the light. Mr Asquith said no one threatened tlio existence, independence, or peaceful I enterprise of Germany. What the Allies 'were concerned with was the system ! which enthroned force as the sovereign authority and held itself free to pursue I its supposed interests, and falsify, deride, or supersede, according to the exigencies iof the hour, the most solemn pacts. This system must end. Germany must learn that it did not pay. If there was to be a. real, enduring pact it must be something more than a paper document. Another misconception was that the Allies, especially Britain, were aiming at the destruction of what was vaguely called the "freedom of the seas." In peace times the seas were open to the ships of all nations. What stipulations would Britain propose to ■ curtail or fetter this immemorial right? The formula could only be used to indicate a new limitation in war time upon the belligerent rights of the Power ■which happened to command the seas. Where existing conventions of the meet solemn character had been systematically violated by the enemy it was worth while considering whether "something might not be done to eecure the freedom of the seas from the prosecution of the lawless and infamous submarine campaign."— (A. and N.Z. Cable.)