Interesting Lecture by Mr. Hume Pinsent: The last of the series of lectures arranged by the teaching staff of the University of Birmingham on “The War: It’s Origin, the Justice of Our Cause, and the Issues at Stake,” was delivered last night in the large lecture theatre of the Midland Institute before a large audience, by Mr. Hume Pinsent. The lecturer said the greater part of Europe had been on the verge of war several times during the last few years. On all of these occasions diplomacy particularly, he thought he might say, British diplomacy — had succeeded in preserving peace. Most people had come to believe that no nation really wished for war, or would undertake the gigantic responsibility bringing it about, although the great industrial peoples of Europe had, in mutual fear, armed themselves to the teeth, and were increasing the already almost intolerable burden of armaments. As on previous occasions, we had hoped that, after a certain amount of tension and diplomatic fencing, the present dispute would in some way or other be patched up. Why were these expectations disappointed? Personally, he had little, if any, doubt that the chief reason was that those who ultimately controlled the policy of the German Empire — that was, the leaders of the military caste — had made up their minds that the time had come risk a war, and that the Austrian grievance against Serbia was a convenient pretext for doing so. They decided, therefore, to force Russia either to fight or to accept humiliation which would have outraged the feelings of her people, paralysed her influence among the Slav nations in the Balkans, and left Austria supreme mistress there. The chief responsibility for the war rested with Germany, and, as a matter of fact, she declared war against Russia five days before Austria did so. Strange as it might appear, there seemed have been a strong opinion in Vienna that Russia was not in a position to make war and would not go to war at the present time, and that it would be possible with impunity to inflict upon her a stunning blow, not only to her interests, but to the sympathies and ideals of her people. If so, it was only one instance of the strange blindness to ideals and the cynical disbelief in any people being actuated by any motive other than immediate material advantage, which had characterised German diplomacy and actions throughout, and had resulted in alienating from her and her allies the sympathy of nearly the whole the civilised world. (Applause.) The domineering tyranny of a military despotism was again threatening Europe in general, and England in particular. … Why England Must Fight: … England must fight and must join with the other independent European States in fighting the foe which threatened to crush the weaker nations, and to stifle and trample upon the free development of all the other peoples, socially, ethically, and intellectually. Hence our arrangements and undertakings with France and Russia. Hence the moral obligation we had undertaken toward the former not to stand by and see her overcome by Germany. And the assumption of these obligations by England was absolutely necessary for the safeguarding of her most vital interests; for if a predominant and aggressive power was not met by the union of all the nations threatened by her, but one or more of them stood and let the others be defeated, it was only playing into the hands of the aggressor, who was only too pleased to devour the leaves of the artichoke one by one. (Applause.) Germany had evidently thought we should adopt such a suicidal policy. He thought the chief reason for her error in this respect was the knowledge the emperor and his advisers had of the hatred of war and militarism which actuated the greater part of our people. This hatred, which certainly existed, was, no doubt, partly a moral one, based on pity, and a loathing of the sufferings which war caused, and the hindrance it must constitute to the achievement, of those social reforms which our aspirations had been more and more set. But he thought it must be admitted that it was also due to a material cause — to a love of ease and comfort, and a dislike of anything which could in any way disturb the industrial prosperity and financial equilibrium which alone made that comfort possible. On that, Germany relied to keep us out of war. Then, too, the acute state of the Irish dispute was, it seemed, represented to the German Government by their own Ambassador in England as a reason why we could not, even if we would, join our Allies if the war were brought about at present. So, the advisers of the emperor believed that we should only be too glad of an excuse to desert our friends, and that even the violation of Belgian neutrality would be condoned by us on the faith of a few vague promises expressly made to cover their breach of an earlier and more solemn engagement. … The Kaiser’s Gospel … To the German Emperor the gospel of German supremacy preached by Treit-schke and Bernhardi was congenial, and for him it took the shape that the regeneration of the world was to come from the imposition upon mankind by force of arms and the point of the sword not only of German methods and organisation, social and political, but also of German methods of education, science, and culture. These new Prussian apostles denounced our ideals of the maintenance of law and order between nations, the observance of treaty obligations, and the protection of the weaker nations as hypocrisy and sham, employed to mask our own weakness, and to cover our desire to avoid the risks of defending ourselves. But how otherwise than as hypocrisy were we to characterise the presence that the object of German aggression was the spreading of the pure light of German culture when the first fruits of it were seen in the destruction of Louvain and Malines, those centres of learning and art, and the other acts of cruelty and barbarism which we had been forced against our wills to recognise as the neo- German method of spiritual propaganda? (Applause.) Three classes, the military and aristocratic caste, the leaders of commerce and industry, and the intellectual doctrinaires of the German universities had adopted, with enthusiasm, this new teaching. That was what had face to-day, and that was why this war must be continued until was decided the issue of which ideals were to prevail in the civilised world — the new Prussian ones of which he had spoken, or those of respect for the rights of others, both nations and individuals, and mutual toleration which we had believed to be slowly taking firmer and firmer hold amongst us, and with which were bound our highest hopes for the future. (Applause.)
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0435 Devonport: Hume Chancellor Pinsent: 1857 – 1920