There would be nothing indefensible in representations of this character. And again, it is not unlikely that a member of Parliament, convinced of certain public dangers associated with the existing system, but representing a constituency where this great industry is established and employs, perhaps, not an inconsiderable section of the local labor, may find his freedom of speech considerably curtailed lest he should be accused of taking the bread from the mouths of some of his constituents. [Sidenote: Armaments cannot be safely left to private profit.] Endless, indeed, are the ramifications of a _private_ industrial interest so wealthy and so well organized, and dependent for its profits upon _national_ expenditure in instruments of warfare, and, consequently, in the ultimate resort, upon war itself. _The general influence exerted upon public life as a whole by the very fact that this industry is a private one, and possesses a large body of shareholders usually belonging to the upper strata of society, cannot be regarded otherwise than as an unhealthy and dangerous element in the nation._ Emphasis is lent to this aspect of the case when it is borne in mind that the armaments industry has of late years become internationalized to a remarkable degree. Recent disclosures, the accuracy of which has not been disputed, in Germany, France, England, and Japan, have clearly shown an inter-connection of the armament interest productive of repellent accompaniments. This inter-connection of interest has, for example, made it possible for a body of British shareholders, including prominent ecclesiastics, members of Parliament, and even Cabinet Ministers, to be financially interested in enterprises engaged in the manufacture of engines of destruction impartially used in the slaughter of Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, and Russians. But however revolting this may be, it is insignificant compared with the graver peril to which precedent allusion has been made. _Reflection must bring with it the conviction that the armament industry is not one which the nation can safely permit to be retained in private hands and to be the subject of private profit._ * * * * * What, then, is to be our policy in connection with the war? First and foremost we must be victorious. That is a prime necessity upon which the nation is unanimous. We must win not only because many British institutions of the highest value would be destroyed by our defeat, not only because Prussia, our principal enemy, is the leading exponent of that doctrine of military domination and intolerance which is incompatible with a permanently peaceful Europe; but also because we must see justice done, as far as may be, to the least powerful of our Allies. _Ample compensation must be secured for Belgium to repair her material loss and in recognition of the wrong done to her._ [Sidenote: What Democracy must do.]