Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1924. PACIFISTS' ASSAULT ON THE ARMY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 67, 19 March 1924, Page 4

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1924. PACIFISTS' ASSAULT ON THE ARMY

The serious business of the Army Estimates was pleasantly relieved by a piece of sheer foolery. "We should dethrone Mars," said Mr. Ayles, M.P., " and enthrone Christianity." The ideal is one in which we can all agree, but the manner in which he proposed to give effect to it was so ludicrously inapplicable to the conditions of this planet as to suggest that it was rather a message from Mars than an attack on Mars that he was expounding. Mr. Ayles proposes to dethrone Mars and enthrone Christianity by reducing the strength of the Army of 161,000 by 150,000. "If the nation completely disarmed, it would," he sa,ys, "be safe for other nations to follow its example." At first sight it looks as though Mr. Ayles had made a very promising beginning, but disappointment at the lack of confidence which he betrays in his own logic is one's inevitable second thought.' A 93 per cent, cut into that loathsome and provocative instrument of a soulless capitalism and a rampant militarism would certainly be better than nothing, but why tolerate 7 per cent, or any fraction at all of the wretched thing? Why not cut the cancerous growth right out by the roots? These noxious organisms have a hasty way of propagating themselves from even an apparently insignificant residue. Noth-, ing short of a 100 per cent, cut will give us any real security against this hideous plague.

It is deplorable that so elementary an oversight should have vitiated Mr. Aylea's well-meant proposal and deprived it of the enthusiastic support which a more thorough-going assertion of his doctrine would have been, entitled to receive. His amendment would have done little more than decimate the Army. The 11,000 British soldiers whom in some unfortunate spasm of moderation and mercy we dare not say in some deliberate aberration from the full rigour of the pacifist gospel—he was induced to spare failed to conciliate a single opponent, afflicted the faithful with sad searchings of. heart, and supplied the logical with at least 11,000 arguments against the motion. If a personnel of 161,000 is bad, how can one of 11,000 be good ? If a reduction of 150,000 will remove a terrible incubus from the Empire, why not remove the whole lot and allow the patient to breathe quite freely? Mr. Ayles can never have imbibed the pure milk of the word of pacifism if he fails to see that even a remnant of 11,000 would be a threat to the liberty of the workers, a stumbling-block in the path of the gospel, and a red rag in the face of France and Russia and all the other peace-loving nations. The climax of Napier's wonderful description of "that astonishing infantry" whom nothing could stop at Albuera tells us how "1800 unbounded men, the remnant of 6000 unconquerable British soldiers, stood triumphant on the fatal hill." We regret that the bloodless assault of the pacifists upon 3Ji army which fears no other foe should, through goodness of heart and weakness of head, have left 11,000 unconquered and unwounded British soldiers on a hill which might easily have been made fatal to the whole lot.

"If the nation bompletely disarmed," said Mr. Ayles, "it would be safe for other nations to follow its example.''' The objection that this hypothesis of a complete disarmament was not fulfilled by his X halting 93 per cent, proposal does not appear to have been taken in a House of Commons which, despite the ascendancy of the Labour Party, is still painfully under the control of common sense. Other evidence of this control was supplied by some of the arguments reported. "You cannot moralise with an alligator," said Colonel John Ward. "It would be national "insanity for Britain to disarm first in a world armed to the teeth." To those whose minds have not been illuminated by the lamp of pacifism there may seem to be a good deal of force in this argument. They cannot see that if Britain disarmed it would really, as Mr. Ayles contends, be' " safe for other nations to follow its example." Even if it'were safe, would there be any inducement for them to do so when the size of the cut they could get out of a defenceless British Empire would depend on the strength of their armaments? And even if any of them were soft enough. and silly enough to miss such a royal road to wealth and power, would they really be safe when other nations, " armed to the teeth," as Colonal Ward says, declined to neglect the opportunity, and so grew strong enough to threaten the liberties of Europe and the whole world, as Germany did ten years ago? A complete surrender to the logic of the pacifist would be easier if Britain were tho only robber State in au otherwise unarmed world. £w© Motabta pisaounc&aients

from the Labour side during the debate were those of Mr. John Lawson and Mi1. Montague. " Mutual disarmament " was declared I by Mr. Lav/son to be the policy of the Government, and Mr. Montague said that "Labour was not pledged tp unconditional disarmament, but it wished to give a lead in simultaneous disarmament." From a reasoned pacifism of-this kind common sense feels no call to dissent. British Labour is determined, as Mr. Montague says, to " have its feet on the ground if its head was in the clouds." We should be. glad to think that our own Labour Party is equally sensible. Diatribes against " those who aim at cementing the parts of the Empire with gunpowder and battleships, which were undoubtedly disintegrating forces," are much more in its line. Does the British bluejacket' really seem to Mr. Holland and his colleagues to be as the British soldier seems to Mr. Ayles—the enemy of peace'! And shall we presently discover that the noble humanitarian gospel of Mr. Ayles has stirred the heart and the lasting gratitude of everybody with a drop of Red Flag blood in his veins?