well. And that is not the worst. The White Paper contains several offers which were made to us by Germany, aimed at securing our neutrality. None were quite satisfactory in their form, and Sir Edward Grey left the impression that these unsatisfactory proposals were all that Germany made. Later on the Prime Minister did the same. Both withheld the full truth from us. The German Ambassador saw Sir Edward Grey, according to the White Paper, on the 1st of August, and this is our Foreign Minister's note of the conversation:

"The Ambassador pressed me as to whether I could not formulate conditions upon which we could remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed." (MacDonald's italics.)

Sir Edward Grey declined to consider neutrality on any conditions, and refrained from reporting this conversation to the house. Why? It was the most important proposal that Germany made. Had this been told to us by Sir Edward Grey, his speech could not have worked up a war sentiment. The hard, immovable fact was that Sir Edward Grey had so pledged the country's honor without the country's knowledge to fight for France and Russia that he was not in a position to discuss neutrality.

Now the apparent contradiction that the man who had worked for European peace was at the same time the leader of the war party in the Cabinet can be explained. Sir Edward Grey strove to undo the result of his policy, and keep Europe at peace, but, when he failed, he found himself committed to dragging his country into war.

Without this wide survey of policy it is impossible to estimate either Sir Edward Grey's culpability or Germany's share of blame.

Germany's share is a heavy one. Taking a narrow view, she, with Russia, is mainly responsible for the war; taking a longer view, we are equally responsible. (Our italics.) The conflict between the Entente and the Alliance had to come, and only two things determined the time of its coming. The first was the relative capacity of the countries to bear the burdens of an armed peace. That was reaching its limit in most countries. The second was the question of how the changes which time was bringing were affecting adversely the military power of the respective opponents. The Alliance was

to receive a great blow on the death of the Austrian Emperor; Russia was building a system of strategic railways up to the German frontier, and this was to be finished in 1916, by which time her army was to be greatly increased. The Entente, therefore, was forcing Germany to fight within two years. We can understand the military mind of Germany faced with these threatening changes if we remember how scared we were when we were told of German threats against ourselves. The stubbornness of Germany shown on every page of the White Paper was not merely military offensiveness, but the stand of a country being put into difficulties by time tipping the balance of power against it. The breaking point had been reached. Foreign ministers and ambassadors had to give place to the war lords.

So I come back to the statement which I think I have clearly proven, that the European War is the result of the existence of the Entente and the Alliance, and that we are in it in consequence of Sir Edward Grey's foreign policy.

RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE LA

BOR PARTY (AUGUST 5TH AND 6TH)

On August 5th and 6th the Labor Party Members of Parliament held two highly important meetings to determine their position toward the war. The result was the following carefully worded resolution:

That the conflict between the nations of Europe in which this country is involved is owing to foreign ministers pursuing diplomatic policies for the purpose of maintaining a balance of power; that our own national policy of understandings with France and Russia only, was bound to increase the power of Russia both in Europe and Asia, and to endanger good relations with Germany.

That Sir Edward Grey, as proved by the facts which he gave to the House of Commons, committed, without the knowledge of our people, the honor of the country to supporting France in the event of any war in which she was seriously involved, and gave definite assurances of support before the House of Commons had any chance of considering the matter.

That the labor movement reiterates the fact that it has

opposed the policy which has produced the war, and that its duty is now to secure peace at the earliest possible moment on such conditions as will provide the best opportunities for the re-establishment of amicable feelings between the workers of Europe.

THE CHANGE IN FRONT OF THE LABOR PARTY

But soon after the invasion of Belgium on August 4th, and the British declaration of war on August 5th, a rapid change of front took place in the Labor Party and in the Socialist Party, though not in the Independent Labor Party.

We shall proceed with the story once more in the words of the Socialist Review. It begins by a reference to the Labor Party resolution just quoted:

(From the Socialist Review, of London)

This resolution [just quoted] was, and at the time of writing remains, the formal declaration of Labor Party policy on the war. How completely the Labor M. P.'s and the generality of the leaders of the movement with the exception of those of the I. L. P. have since departed from the terms and spirit of that statement is known to our readers. The defection began early and soon became a stampede. On the very night of the adoption of the resolution by the Executive the majority of the Labor Members of Parliament opposed the proposal of their chairman, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, that he should read its terms in his speech that evening to the house. In consequence of their retraction from the position and policy which until then the party had unanimously adopted, Mr. MacDonald resigned from the chairmanship of the parliamentary group, and Mr. Arthur Henderson, who was then in full accord with Mr. MacDonald, accepted the office temporarily.

A few days later, on the invitation of the Prime Minister, the Labor members agreed to co-operate with the Liberal and Tory Parties in promoting a joint recruiting campaign, the purpose of which was also, as Mr. Asquith afterwards explained, to justify the war policy of the government. In

response to a similar request, the National Executive of the Labor Party decided to place the electoral machinery of the party at the disposal of the joint committee for recruiting purposes. Since then the whole of the Labor Members of Parliament, with the exception of four of the six I. L. P. members, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. F. W. Jowett, and Mr. Tom Richardson, have, in a greater or less degree, identified themselves with the war policy of the government and the so-called "non-political" recruiting campaign.

But while the Labor Party, as a whole, did not rescind the resolution of August 6th, and did not adopt a substitute, an entirely new ground was taken by a majority of the very Labor Members of Parliament who had passed the resolution and also by the Federation of Trades Unions representing over a million unionists, largely unskilled, and the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, which represents nearly all of the labor unions of Great Britain. Taken together these statements give very thorough expression to the position of the overwhelming majority of the members of the British trade unions and of the Labor Party. We give selections from all three documents in their historical order-beginning with a quotation from the manifesto of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress:

A factor to be remembered in this crisis of our nation's history, and most important of all so far as trade unionists and labor in general are concerned, is the fact that upon the result of the struggle in which this country is now engaged rest the preservation and maintenance of free and unfettered democratic government, which in its international relationships has in the past been recognized as, and must unquestionably in the future prove to be, the best guarantee for the preservation of the peace of the world.

The mere contemplation of the overbearing and brutal methods to which people have to submit under a government

controlled by a military autocracy-living, as it were, continuously under the threat and shadow of war-should be sufficient to arouse the enthusiasm of the nation in resisting any attempt to impose similar conditions upon countries at present free from military despotism.

It will be observed that this declaration of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress (dated September 3d) takes an international standpoint. Its chief argument for supporting the recruiting campaign is that a German victory would lead to the spread of military despotism and to further wars.

The position of the Management Committee of the Federation of Trades Unions on the other hand is more nationalistic and is very similar to that of the government itself—as the following paragraphs will show:

In Germany and in Austria, and also in the neutral states of Europe and America, persistent attempts are being made to misrepresent the attitude of the British labor movement towards the government, and towards the crisis through which Europe is passing. Extracts from speeches and cuttings from newspapers are collated, and conclusions drawn which cannot be justified by facts, and which do not represent the real opinion of the British working-class movement.

Under such circumstances, an organization like the General Federation of Trade Unions, which represents, and is to a great extent interested in the financial stability of 1,006,904 trade unionists, must remove all doubt concerning its own position and intention.

It cannot better begin this task than by stating that it is, and always has been, on the side of international as well as industrial peace.

In the opinion of millions of trade unionists, the responsibility for the war does not rest upon the policy or conduct of Great Britain.

This opinion is supported from our own side by documentary evidence, and by the fact of our own unpreparedness, and from the opposing side by the utterances of their soldiers, their statesmen, and their teachers, and by their terrible and