against British, rule." (p. 254.) Comment is needless. The reading and
re-reading of this book forces the conclusion as to its sinister
design. Once that design is exposed its danger recedes. There is one at
least of the "backward races" that may not be sufficiently alive to
self-interest, but may for all that upset the capitalist table and
scatter the deal by what Ruskin described in another context as "the
inconvenience of the reappearance of a soul."


III


We must not fail to distinguish the worth of the best type of
anti-militarist and to value the truth of his statement. It is curious
to find Mr. Angell writing an introduction to M. Novikow's book, for M.
Novikow's position is, in our point of view, quite different. He does
not draw the fine distinction of policing the "backward races." Rather,
he defends the Bengalis. Suppose their rights had never been violated,
he says: "They would have held their heads higher; they would have been
proud and dignified, and perhaps might have taken for their motto, _Dieu
et mon droit_." ("War and Its Alleged Benefits," p. 12.) He can be
ironical and he can be warm. Later, he writes; "The French (and all
other people) should vindicate their rights with their last drop of
blood; so what I write does not refer to those who defend their rights,
but to those who violate the rights of others." (Note p. 70.) He does
not put by the moral plea, but says: "Political servitude develops the
greatest defects in the subjugated peoples." (p. 79.) And he pays his
tribute to those who die for a noble cause: "My warmest sympathy goes
out to those noble victims who preferred death to disgrace." (p. 82.)
This is the true attitude and one to admire; and any writer worthy of