It is superfluous to speak of his courtesy of manner and kindness of heart, or of his unflagging devotion--up till the very day of his death--to what he regarded as his duty. There is a passage in Urquhart's translation of _Rabelais_ which always recalls him to my mind:--_He was the best little great good man that ever girded a sword on his side; he took all things in good part, and interpreted every action in the best sense_. In a leading German newspaper there appeared, a few days after his death, the following reference to that event:--"It was not given to Lord Roberts to see the realisation of his dreams of National Service; but the blows struck on the Aisne were hammer-strokes which might after a long {xxv} time and bitter need produce it. Lord Roberts was an honourable and, through his renown, a dangerous enemy ... personally an extraordinarily brave enemy. Before such a man we lower our swords, to raise them again for new blows dealt with the joy of conflict." Nor was this the only allusion of the kind which figured in German newspapers 'to the journey of an old warrior to Walhalla,' with his final mission yet unaccomplished, but destined to be sooner or later accomplished, if his country was to survive. In none of these references, so far as I have been able to discover, was there the least trace of malice against the man who had warned his fellow-countrymen, more clearly than any other, against the premeditated aggression of Germany. This seems very strange when we recollect how, for nearly two years previously, a large section of the British nation had been engaged in denouncing Lord Roberts for the outrageous provocations which he was alleged to have offered to Germany--in apologising to Germany for his utterances--in suggesting the propriety of depriving him of his pension in the interests of Anglo-German amity. What this section has itself earned in the matter of German gratitude we know from many hymns and other effusions of hate. {xxvi} Hugh Dawnay and John Gough. I have dedicated this volume to the memory of John Gough and Hugh Dawnay, not solely on grounds of friendship, but also because from both I received, at different times, much help, advice, and criticism--from the latter when the original Memorandum was in course of being drafted--from both when it was being reconsidered with a view to publication. Whether either of them would agree with the statement in its present form is more than I can venture to say, and I have no intention of claiming their authority for conclusions which were never seen by them in final shape.