expressed against politicians, the Front Benches, and the Party machines. This is no sudden impulse or passing phase. It is a genuine and deep distrust which began with the war and has been growing stronger ever since. It is embittered by a feeling almost of despair; for there appears to be no way of getting out of the clutches of the octopus. It is feared that when war is over one antiquated faction will be found manoeuvring, debating, and declaiming, as of old, against another equally antiquated faction; and that the country will have to choose between two Parties, both of which have forfeited all title to its confidence. The war has convinced the younger generation that the greatest qualities are honesty and courage, not mere brains. Young men no longer want to be thought clever, they want to be morally and physically brave-to do their best for the country, not to fritter away their devotion upon any set of shibboleths or Party politicians. They will insist that their leaders in all walks of life shall be brave, and they believe-not without reason that political training under the prevalent Party system saps moral courage. The most constant complaint at home among all classes, still more in the trenches and behind the lines, is that politicians who occupy the highest and most important places are wanting in these qualities of honesty and courage. Again and again we have heard instanced the failure to govern Ireland; the failure of the various Cabinets to deal with labour problems fairly, frankly, and firmly; the failure to get men for the Army, although it is well known that the men exist and can be got; the failure to punish failures. All these failures and many others are attributed to moral cowardice; and the prevalence of moral cowardice is in turn attributed to the degrading and paralysing influence of Party spirit, which is incapable of looking at present circumstances simply with a view to what is best for the country, but always has one eye fixed upon how this or that decision may in the future affect the votes of this or that section of the electorate. The war has taught the country, though not apparently the politicians, to believe in very simple things, and to believe in them only. We do not disguise from ourselves that in attempting to create a National Party of reform, union, and defence we shall have all the forces of both political machines against us. Nor do we disguise from ourselves that we can only hope to make a beginning. When the war ends, the direction of any organization which we may now succeed in setting up will assuredly be taken out of our hands. When those who have fought this war return they will rightly insist upon taking over control. Our sole object is to make a beginning at once, before it is too late; and if at an early date our movement passes into worthier hands than our own, we could wish for nothing better. CORRESPONDENCE PEACEFUL PENETRATION BY NEUTRALS To the Editor of the National Review SIR,-May I draw your attention to the present state of our company laws, under which it is possible for a foreign company controlled from abroad to trade in the United Kingdom, to carry out contracts with our Government Departments, and, so slight are the powers of the Board of Trade, pay the whole of such dividends as it may declare to foreign shareholders, whether friendly, neutral, or hostile. It might perhaps be argued that in times of peace there may be advantages, or at any rate no disadvantages, in such an arrangement, but in times of war surely there can be no question that it is both absurd and intolerable. In an attempt to promote co-operation amongst Derbyshire dairyfarmers I have recently been brought into contact with a powerful foreign company, the Nestlé and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, whose headquarters are in Switzerland; whose directors are, with one exception, foreigners; whose shares are in the form of share warrants to bearer and are not quoted on any English Stock Exchange; which owns a considerable number of factories in various counties in England and Scotland, as well as in other countries, through which it is building up an increasing control over our milk-supplies; which purveys on remunerative terms, withheld by the authorities, condensed milk and chocolate to the Navy and Army; and whose dividend for 1915 was at the rate of 25 per cent. and for 1916 at a rate of over 20 per cent. Under s. 274 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, this company has filed at Somerset House: (1) Copy of memorandum and articles, charter, or other instrument defining its constitution; (2) Names and addresses of its directors; (8) Name and address of a person who will accept service on its behalf; (4) Its yearly balance-sheet. The above section makes no provision for the filing of a list of shareholders, and no such list has been filed. Inquiries of the Board of Trade produced the reply that the Board understood that I was correct in stating that the company's shares were in the form of share warrants to bearer, and it was not possible therefore to ascertain by whom they are held. Again, as the shares were bearer shares it would probably not be possible to ascertain whether some of them may not be held by enemies. Again, the particulars which a foreign company is required to file at Somerset House do not include a list of shareholders. The shares of the Nestlé Company are represented by bearer warrants, so that such a requirement would not seem to be practicable in that case. A question in the House on June 28, 1917, setting out the facts with regard to the capital, directors, property, and dividends of the company elicited the statement that the Board of Trade was not aware of any ground on which action should be taken, but was having certain inquiries made as to the ownership of the company's shares-an inquiry which, on the Board's earlier admissions, was not likely to produce any conclusive results. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reply to a question on July 11, indeed, made no bones about it, but stated roundly that the company's share capital being in the form of share warrants to bearer, there appeared to be no means of ascertaining whether any of its shares were held by enemy holders. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, however, with more confidence apparently in the powers of the Board of Trade, replied that the question of ascertaining whether there are any enemy shareholders was being taken up by that Department. Both these gentlemen, however, refused to state the terms of the contracts held by the company with their departments. I should like now to call your particular attention to the methods of inquiry which, faute de mieux, one supposes, were adopted by the Board of Trade, as disclosed in a reply to a further question on August 6: "Evidence has been produced to the Board of Trade by the Nestlé and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, founded mainly on declarations of Swiss banks by which the coupons are paid, showing that per cent. of the issued capital is held by enemy subjects and 88 per cent. by Swiss, British, Allied, and neutral subjects. Some part of the remaining 11 per cent. of the issued capital may also be held by enemy subjects, but I have no reason to think that any substantial part of the capital is so held." "Evidence has been produced by the company" (the company as to which the inquiry was being made)" founded mainly on declarations of Swiss banks"! One-half per cent. of the capital is admitted to be held by enemies, another 11 per cent. may be! The Board of Trade suggested no action, but was prepared to consider special legislation to compel foreign companies trading in the United Kingdom to disclose the names of its shareholders. Is it not obvious that some further legislation is necessary to strengthen the hands of the Board of Trade? I hope that the influence of your widely read magazine may be brought to bear to that end, and remain, YELDERSLEY HALL, DERBY Yours faithfully, H. FITZHERBERT WRIGHT THE NATIONAL REVIEW No. 417. NOVEMBER 1917 EPISODES OF THE MONTH THE Allies are spared one anxiety which has normally been the nightmare of most belligerents in most wars-especially when The they are winning. Their success usually arouses Belligerents' disquietude, if not jealousy, in the neutral world Nightmare to which the conflict is necessarily inconvenient, and consequently intervention is threatened at awkward moments, either in the shape of mediation or by some other form of diplomatic pressure. Every war is a standing challenge to Neutrals to assert themselves, their temptation growing as the war lengthens and the warring nations weaken. Even so robust and resolute a man as President Lincoln had moments of anxiety during the Civil War of fifty years ago as to the possible attitude of European Powers, and several generations of American children were brought up on the legend that the visit of a Russian squadron to a New York harbour at the height of the conflict was intended as a significant hint to the Old World that the Northern States were not entirely friendless. We know from Bismarck's Memoirs and the pages of his Boswell, Busch, that the Man of Blood and Iron was for ever looking over his shoulder throughout the victorious campaigns in which Prussia engaged in the decade 18601870, speculating whether envious onlookers might not be tempted to combine and restrain her aggrandizement. As a shrewd and far-sighted statesman, Bismarck realized all the consequences of Prussian policy to the rest of Europe. He could hardly bring VOL. LXX 17 himself to believe that Russia and Great Britain would unconcernedly look on while Denmark was despoiled and the site of the Kiel Canal stolen from her on the flimsiest pretext, or later on that Austria would be allowed to be knocked out by France, whose turn would obviously come whenever Prussia had asserted her predominance in the German Empire. Still greater was Bismarck's surprise during the crux of the war of 1870, that Russia, Great Britain, and the Dual Monarchy should tolerate the dismemberment and spoliation of France. But so it was, and dearly have all three paid for their blindness and folly in allowing themselves to be set by the ears by "the honest broker" of Berlin while the German Empire acquired its perilous ascendancy. Bismarck's WERE Bismarck alive to-day the Great War would have been fought under far more favourable circumstances for Germany, as he was a genius in isolating his victims one by one and falling upon them when they were most out of favour with the rest of the world. Also by now he would have known how to command the services of powerful neutrals, whose diplomacy would have been invaluable in counteracting the development of hostile combinations. Happily for Civilization the latter-day custodians of Kultur are very inferior men to the creator of the modern German Empire. It has been their policy to multiply the enemies of the Fatherland and to estrange neutrals, until at last Germany finds herself alone in the world with the Dual Monarchy, Turkey, and Bulgaria, though propinquity compels such minor communities as Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and Switzerland to comparative compliance with her views. Our chief apprehension disappeared when the Berlin Government insisted on picking a quarrel with the Washington Government. Until that golden moment, there can be now no harm in admitting, there was considerable anxiety on this side of the Atlantic concerning the possibility of incidents arising over which the United States and the Allies would take different views. Also, so long as so great a Power remained neutral, with a different set of interests to any belligerents, which as a neutral the American Government were bound to uphold, we never knew when we might receive a diplomatic offer suggesting |