direction of motion. This impression, of course, disappears in the case of soaring birds progressing without apparent motion of the wings. The forward motion of flapping wings is necessary, in order that the wing may cut the air rather than beat it as it moves downwards and forwards. Were it to move backwards on its downward stroke it would, so to speak, leave the under-pressure behind instead of meeting this under-pressure as the body moves forwards.

The main principle of flapping flight is that, without the body of the bird having acquired the necessary air speed as in soaring, the wing by its forward motion creates sufficient air speed to cut the air, decreasing the pressure on the upper curved surface, and allowing the elasticity of the air below to come instantaneously into action and thus give the upward pressure. It is only by the projection of a curved surface in a direction to divide the air into convex and concave stream lines, that the expansive energy takes proper effect. In the case of the bird when soaring, it is only possible to acquire the projecting power as the resultant of the pull of gravity and the upward pressure created by the expanding air. Therefore, the bird must direct the projection so that the pressure at right angles is in an upward direction, just sufficiently out of the vertical to form an angle with the absolutely vertical pull of gravity, such as will give the resultant force necessary with the momentum, or already acquired air speed, to continue and maintain the speed of projection. The blades of the gyropter are not in the form of helices or screws; they are simply a series of curved planes, projected by the direct power of engines round and round instead of straight ahead, throwing off the pressure from above, and allowing the air below to exert its expanding force, and thus extracting from the air its energy in the direction of the axis of the gyropter.

Each blade, in fact, acts like the wing of an albatross only the force which projects it round and round is direct engine-power. It is by inclining the axes of both gyropters away from the vertical that motion is imparted to the entire structure of the rotary-wing flying-machine.




At a time when the workers of other countries are crying out against the evils of conscription, a persistent attempt is being made to introduce it into this country in the form of compulsory military training. It is because this agitation is backed by a large array of influential men and women of the rich classes and lavishly supplied with money that we think it desirable to warn the working classes of this well-organised conspiracy against their liberties. . . .

We regard compulsion in any form as bad. Home defence does not need it. . . .

Trade Unionists, co-operators, and other organised workmen have been untouched by this mischievous propaganda of militarism. They stand resolutely by the voluntary system as the only one which the workers will tolerate.


We urge upon all classes the importance of a strenuous resistance to the demands which are made for compulsory military training by Lord Roberts and the National Service League, of which he is the head. We are convinced that we speak for the vast majority of wage-earners in thus offering to those demands our determined opposition.

SUCH are the words of a manifesto issued last year by the International Arbitration League and signed by all the members of the Labour party and by nearly 1000 Labour representatives. It is our task to consider how far the objections of the working classes to compulsory service for home defence are founded upon reason, whether those objections are generally or only very partially held among the wage-earners, and whether the International Arbitration League have any justification for claiming to speak for the vast majority' of the workers; for since universal compulsory training for home defence can admittedly only be introduced by the consent of the people, the determined opposition to it of a large section of the community must put off indefinitely the adoption of any military reform which would be founded upon this principle.

In the first place, it must be noted that the Labour members and delegates can only claim to represent the forces of organised labour-that is to say, of a sum-total of some two-and-a-half out of fifteen millions of workers; in other words, one-sixth only of

the labouring population is enrolled in trades unions and in kindred associations and makes its voice heard both in Parliament and in the country, while the remaining five-sixths are unorganised and inarticulate, and, it is to be feared, indifferent to the burning questions of the day, except where their own immediate interests are concerned. Now, organised labour and Socialism are practically one, for the line between them is so narrow and so lightly drawn as to be almost invisible; and it is well known that the Labour leaders in the House of Commons, who represent organised labour, have accepted the Socialist programme. It is true that the more moderate leaders of labour, and many of the rank and file of the working-men, accept as their economic creed Arnold Toynbee's definition of Socialism, as a belief in liberty, justice, and self-help, with aid from the State as representing the whole nation in cases where the people cannot help themselves, as favouring, not paternal but fraternal government, and as accepting the principle of property and repudiating confiscation and violence. Still, the party as a whole undoubtedly follow Marx in advocating the entire emancipation of labour from the control of capital, and in claiming for labour the full product of labour.' Let us see what are the views of the Socialist leaders on the subject of a national army.

At the annual conference of the Social Democrats, a resolution. to resist armaments, and practically to disarm, was defeated at the instance of the executive voiced by Mr. Harry Quelch in favour of a declaration that war can best be avoided by maintaining a strong Navy, and by organising our Army as a national citizen force. Mr. Hyndman, too, has recently written to the Press advocating a universal citizen army for home defence, such army not to be liable to military law except in time of war, and to have the power of electing its own officers.

Now, thoroughly to understand the bearing of these utterances, the pages of the Socialistic organs-Justice, The Clarion, the Social Democrat, etc.-must be studied, when it will be abundantly clear that the Socialist party, which has captured the organised labour vote and holds the so-called Labour members in thrall, hates all regular professional armies because their officers come from the propertied class, and discipline will cause the men to range themselves behind those officers on the side of law and order. So, too, and for similar reasons, does it oppose Lord Haldane's Territorial Army. A more reactionary militarist (in the worst sense), and anti-democratic system than that to which the present War Minister has had the effrontery to apply our term of the "Armed Nation," could hardly be devised." And Mr. Keir Hardie, in condemning the Territorial

1 Social Democrat, October 1907.

Army scheme at a conference of the Independent Labour party in 1907, said that such a so-called citizen army was

as great a menace to an industrial population as a professional army, and if officered by the rich it would, though recruited from the people, be taught to regard the flag as holy, and would shoot down strikers and Socialists as freely as the most exclusive professional army in the world.

Indeed, Mr. Keir Hardie, whether more honest or less of an opportunist than his comrades, has declared himself against all armaments and preparations for war. At Hanley, in October 1910, he said he was present to speak not only against war, but against militarism, including home defence.' Glasgow, in April 1911, he further declared that he

And at

hoped Glasgow would return the five Labour candidates to fight against the foul militarism that was creeping into our schools in the form of Boy Scouts and brigades, flag-waving, and rifle ranges. While the children were taught the commandment Thou shalt not kill,' they were expected to put this precept into practice by learning how best to kill their brethren in foreign lands.

The great majority of Socialists, however, do not appear to share Mr. Keir Hardie's views as to the possibility of avoiding war, and they look to a national citizen army on a socialistic basis as a means towards the fulfilment of their dreams of reform. As to the possible value of such an army we shall refer later. That their enmity to our present military system, Regular and Territorial, and also to the adoption of national training on the Swiss system, or as proposed by the National Service League, is based upon considerations of how such a force would be controlled, was clearly shown by the action of the delegates who accompanied the committee of inquiry which the National Service League sent to Switzerland in 1907; these men opposed all the proposals of the League when they learnt that the Swiss National Army would certainly support the Government in the event of serious industrial disorder. It would, however, appear that most Socialists are not blind to the German menace, or to the chances of war generally. Mr. Blatchford's articles on the subject are too well known to need recapitulation; and Mr. Harry Quelch, in his book Social Democracy and the Armed Nation, writes:

Militarism is an evil against which we have to fight with all the means in our power, but to talk of universal disarmament at the present stage is mere Utopianism, a crying of peace when there is no peace, and when existing antagonisms make peace impossible. We have first to eradicate the causes of conflict. To-day the unarmed nation offers itself as a temptation and a prey to some mighty brigand Power. War is the last argument of kings and all governments rest on force. So long as that is the case it is only the people which is armed that can maintain its freedom. An unarmed nation cannot be free.

If we pass from the consideration of the public utterances of the Labour and Socialist leaders, and inquire why a section of the general community of wage-earners are opposed to the programme of the National Service League, we shall find that this hostility is based upon four considerations, which must be treated separately. These are:

1. The Waste of War.

2. The Improbability of War.
3. The Wickedness of War.

4. The Uselessness of War.

1. That war is wasteful as a general proposition cannot be controverted, though there is something to be said in favour of expenditure upon armaments, if it be true that over eighty per cent. of the sum allotted for the building and fitting out of a warship is spent in wages. The news that a battleship was to be constructed in a Thames yard would now come as a message of hope and promise of prosperity to hundreds of homes in the southeastern districts of London, and it may fairly be argued that expenditure on such a ship is not more wasted than if devoted to the making of, say, 1000 motor-cars; both works involve the circulation of money and are good for trade and employment, especially the ship, as the money is spent at home, whereas half the motorcars would probably come from France. But after all, the practical question is, Can wars be stopped because they are considered economically wasteful? Mr. Keir Hardie and a certain following say yes, and they look to combination among the workers of all countries to effect their purpose. 'I am one of those who believe in the general strike as a means of stopping war." This has long been a dream of the Socialists, and its principle was enunciated at the International Congress held at Brussels in 1868, when a resolution was passed denouncing war and calling upon all workers to resist it by a general strike. So, too, in October 1907, do we find The Socialist adopting Hervé's advice: In case of mobilisation the proletariat should respond to the call to arms by an insurrection against their rulers to establish the Socialist or Communist régime. Rebellion sooner than war.' But that the fulfilment of this programme is only a dream at present is recognised by the more practical members of the party, who know that the Socialist working-men of Germany in 1875 accepted universal military duty as one of the planks of their platform, and have more than once since that date stated plainly that they would obey their country's call if summoned to fight in her behalf. Indeed, the common-sense attitude of the German Socialists is shown by the wording of an article in Vorwärts * Conference at Leicester, February 1911.

« VorigeDoorgaan »