This leads me to one other point-the development of the military spirit in Europe. I think I am justified in saying that in the last forty years Europe has been an armed camp. The possibility of such a state of affairs grows out of the facts I have just mentioned. Nothing can stay this but an understanding between the leaders of the various nations which would recognise and ameliorate racial differences and look towards a peaceful solution of their difficulties. I trust, gentlemen, I am justified in saying that this was made impossible because of the military spirit and race pretensions of Germany. I am not going to argue that question. The record shows that she alone, led by her war lords, refused to consider any agreement looking to the amelioration of these conditions, because she had set before herself the task of dominating Europe, through Europe the world. From the hour he ascended the throne of Germany, the Kaiser, in spite of his peace pretensions, has been preparing for the day when Germany would be ready to strike for world supremacy. He refused to listen to proposals which looked toward peace before the war began, because he with his ally had deliberately planned the war to begin when they were ready and when they thought they could succeed. Servia was an incident. The treatment of Belgium, with its dark deeds of shame, is the normal manifestation of the military spirit of Prussia. But that is another story.

I must in closing call your attention to a few things that are at stake in this war and that vitally concern us as Canadians.

In the first place, the right of small nations to exist at all is at stake. Leaders of German thought have openly declared that the state unable to defend itself by force of arms has no right to exist. We were complacent enough to believe these statements to be the offspring of minds disordered by desire for military glory and did not believe such judgments could be held by responsible political leaders. The invasion of Belgium, whose integrity Germany had guaranteed and whose neutrality she had promised not to violate up to forty-eight hours before invasion, was a death-blow aimed not only at Belgium but at all small nations which stood in the way of the domina

tion of Germany. That this is a fair interpretation of her action, I believe, will be the judgment of history. In the long story of human conflict it is questionable if any nation ever had such treatment as unoffending Belgium received at the hands of Germany. And it is equally doubtful if ever a small nation rose more gloriously to the occasion.

Further, the sacredness of international treaties is at stake also.

Let me illustrate what I mean. Last year there was a dispute between England and the United States as to the interpretation to be put upon a certain treaty that had been entered into between the United States and England. Now, that treaty might reasonably be interpreted in two ways. The United States interpreted it in one way and England interpreted it in another way. The Congress of the United States of that day said to the public, "We have the authority and the power to interpret this treaty as we please, and we believe that ours is the rational interpretation of this treaty and we intend to abide by it." Congress put itself behind that interpretation by a legal enactment. A little later on came a President of the United States who held a different view. He went into the Congress of the United States of America and this is what he said-in meaning if not in words-to the American Congress: "Gentlemen, this nation is strong enough to interpret that treaty as it sees fit; we have power enough to interpret that treaty and to carry out our obligations under it in terms which this nation may determine;" but he also added: "Gentlemen, this nation is not strong enough to defy the moral judgment of the world, and we are bound to put on our Statute Books an interpretation of that treaty that will satisfy the moral judgment of the civilised nations to-day, who believe we were taking advantage of them in what we did last year." Then be it said to the everlasting credit of the people of the United States of America and the Congress of the United States of America-that when it was put to them in that form they wrote into the Statute Book an interpretation of that treaty which was in accord with the common judgment of nations whose interests were affected. Now, I ask you to compare that with the interpretation which the German Emperor and his government

put upon treaties over which England and Germany went to war. When the German Emperor and his government were presented with the British point of view with regard to that treaty, they did not deny their obligations; they called it a Scrap of Paper," and declared that their necessities must first be considered. They practically said to the world, "So far as we are concerned, treaties have no meaning for us; we reserve the right, in emergencies, to interpret them to suit our convenience." Only recently some public journals in Germany have openly made the statement that they intended to interpret any treaty to which they had written their name in the interest of the German Empire. Now, England has gone to war over a treaty. In reality that is what she has done, and she has said, International obligations made by great nations must bind them one to another, and they must abide by the obligations into which they enter." In my judgment, England has given a new moral status to international treaties; she has set a moral judgment for herself on which she must act on all future occasions; and she has made a moral judgment in regard to treaties by which every civilised nation in the world must hereafter abide.

You gentlemen who are taking your sword in your hand in defence of that position will be the men who will compel the nations of the earth to recognise the sacredness of those obligations.

Then, again, the whole body of international law by which the nations are governed in relation to one another is at stake. For 500 years, the Christian conscience of the world has been at work framing regulations by which nations would govern themselves in their relation one to another. Bit by bit, step by step, those obligations have been written either in the form of treaties or laws to which the nations have agreed, and they have said that by these laws we will abide in all our international relations. I think I am safe in saying that there is hardly a principle of international law that has not been violated by our enemies in this great war so far as it has gone. To-day, there is no international law except as England and her allies abide by the regulations and laws to which they have set names. One of the great results of this war will be that the status of

international law will be re-established, and it will be reestablished because Britain and her allies will win the war, and, backed by the Christian conscience of the civilised world, will have the power to see that in future these obligations will be respected.

But there is one other thing at stake in this war that is more sacred to you and me than any of those I have mentioned the great sacred principle of liberty is at stake. You will remember how the British people wrested their liberty step by step from tyrant kings. Germany to-day is in the state of liberty that we were 500 years ago. Any man familiar with our constitutional history knows that under the Great Charter granted in 1215, we enjoy privileges that are not open to the men who live in the German Empire to-day. The clash of arms is the clash over certain ideals. The right of men to live and be free, to think and be free, is at stake. The question to be decided is this-Is the future of the world to be in the hands of a Military Tyranny or a Free Democracy?

The Emperors of Rome, the Stuarts of England and the Bourbons of France tried the experiment which the German Emperor is trying. Over and over again men have tried it. Napoleon Bonaparte tried it, and he would have succeeded for a time but for the might of England's navy and England's sword. It is the same old conflict. We, in Canada, are apt to think that it will not come home to us. We are so far from the field of conflict that it takes time to get down to the depths of our hearts what it all means. What would it mean if some morning we got the news that the British fleet had been destroyed at sea, and that the German fleet had started to make its way across the Atlantic? Where would our freedom be? It would not last one hour. We would have a military despotism set up in the Dominion of Canada unless our neighbours to the South had the will and power to protect us. We know that even if they have the will they have not the power.

There is nothing more clear to-day than that the designs of the German Empire have been against the British Empire rather than against France and Belgium. Nothing is more clear than that. We are only now becoming

familiar with the military literature which for the last twenty years they have been producing. We are a complacent sort of people, and do not bother our heads much about these things, but we are now becoming familiar with their propaganda, the ruling strain of which is, “England is our only foe." In this they are only expressing the idea that has been in the minds of the ruling class of Germany ever since the days of Bismarck.

Gentlemen, you are taking upon yourselves the great responsibility of protecting these ancient liberties dearly bought. It is an awful war, but it is a holy war. As God lives, it is a holy war, and every man who buckles on his sword should do so in that understanding. You are the living embodiment of the belief expressed by Byron that"Freedom's battle once begun,

Bequeathed by bleeding sire to son,
Though baffled oft is ever won,”,

and you will go into the battle with some understanding of its significance and meaning.

My heart bleeds at the thought that some of you may not return. I confess to you that I am never able to speak about this matter without feelings of emotion and without a consciousness of pain. Some of you may not return. Your names, if you do not-and whether you do or notwill be enshrined in the memory of this great country in future. We will always remember, and our sons and our daughters will remember, that in this battle which was fought and which will be won, you are the men who took the responsibility of winning it for us. And, gentlemen, if you do not return, as some of you may not, what shall I say? Well, I can only quote that oft-quoted line of Macaulay's, words which he puts in the mouth of Horatius

of old

There certainly is no higher ambition that can inspire the breast of any man than to live for his country, and when the crisis comes to die for his country.