On the same day, in order that the Liberals might not have a monopoly of reprobation, the _Evening Standard_, in an article entitled _A Word with Lord Roberts_, rated him soundly for having "made an attack upon Germany and an attack upon the Territorial Force...." "It is mere wanton mischief-making for a man with Lord Roberts's unequalled prestige to use words which must drive every German who reads them to exasperation." And yet no signs whatsoever were forthcoming that so much as a single Teuton had been rendered desperate, or had taken the words as in the least degree uncomplimentary. Up to the day of his death--and indeed after his death[8]--Lord Roberts was almost the only Englishman of his time of whom Germans spoke with consistent respect.... "Do not," continues this lofty and sapient mentor, "Do not let us talk as if the Kaiser could play the part of a Genghis Khan or an Attila, ravening round the world at the head of armed {342} hordes to devour empires and kingdoms."[9] And yet how otherwise has the whole British Press been talking ever since the middle of August 1914? If during this period of nine months, the _Evening Standard_ has kept all reference to Attila and his Huns out of its columns, its continence is unique. It would serve no useful purpose to set out further items of criticism and abuse from the leader and correspondence columns of newspapers, or from the speeches of shocked politicians. The _Nation_, the _Manchester Guardian_, and the _Daily News_ are entitled, between them, to speak for the Liberal party; and if it cannot be said that the _Evening Standard_ is quite similarly qualified in respect of the Unionists, there is still no doubt that the views which it expressed with so much vigour, prescience, and felicity were held by many orthodox members of its party. Colonel Bromley-Davenport, for example, who had been Financial Secretary to the War Office in the late Unionist Government, spoke out strongly against Lord Roberts's comments upon the efficiency of the Territorial Force. 'Compulsory service,' in his opinion, 'was not necessary....' And then, with a burst of illuminating candour--"Which of the great parties in the state would take up compulsory service and fight a general election upon it? The answer was that neither of the parties would; and to ask for compulsory military service was like crying for the moon."[10] The power of any proposal for winning elections was to be the touchstone of its truth. It would be impossible to state more concisely the attitude of the orthodox politician. {343} Which party, indeed, we may well ask, would have fought a general election on anything, however needful, unless it hoped to win on it? [Sidenote: MINISTERIAL ATTACKS]