interest," the dynastic interest, which was hostile both to nationalism and
democracy.

Since 1814, however, there have been great strides along the paths both of
democracy and of nationalism. And if Germany loses this war, the congress
of the settlement will meet in a very different atmosphere from that in
which its predecessor assembled at Vienna. It will be a conference of
powers victorious over Reaction not Revolution, and pledged to the support
of a liberal programme. And yet if such a conference became a permanent
feature of European life, if, in other words, a new attempt were made to
set up an international tribunal, it might easily become as dangerous to
the liberties of the people as ever was the Holy Alliance. The dynastic
principle it is to be hoped, will never again threaten the world's peace or
progress; but there are other vested interests besides the dynastic one.
During the nineteenth century economic development has given an enormous
impetus to international movements and cosmopolitanism generally.
Unfortunately political development, though great, has not by any means
kept pace with the economic; in other words, it is still possible in most
countries, and in some more possible than in others, for a small oligarchy
to gain control of the political machine.

Again, if there is one thing in the world more international than Labour,
it is Capital; and, as Mr. Norman Angell has shown, it is the capitalist
who is hardest hit by international war and who stands to gain most from
its abolition. European capital is almost certain to have a large say in
the settlement, and considerable influence in the counsels of any new
Concert of Europe that might come into existence. Now suppose--a not
impossible contingency--that a ring of capitalists gained complete control
of some politically backward country like Russia, and suppose a grave
crisis arose in the Labour world in England or France, what would be easier