Justice in War Time/Publisher's Preface
PUBLISHER'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
[Bertrand Russell's activities against war, and his theories on pacifism, as expressed in his book. Justice in War-Time, has resulted in a military order, issued September 1, 1916, by his own cousin, forbidding him to enter any restricted territory or fortified district.
Mr. Russell has published the following in his own defense:]
A PERSONAL STATEMENT
On Friday, September 1st, two men from Scotland Yard, acting on behalf of the War Office, served a War Office Order on me, forbidding me to enter any prohibited area without permission in writing from the competent Military Authority. (Prohibited areas include practically all places near the sea, including many whole counties.) On September 11th, in reply to representations, an official letter was sent to me by order of the Army Council, containing the following paragraph:
"I am further to state that the Council would be prepared to issue instructions for the withdrawal of the order if you, on your part, would give an undertaking not to continue a propaganda which, if successful, would, in their opinion, militate to some extent against the effective prosecution of the war."
My profession hitherto has been that of a lecturer on mathematical logic. The Government have forbidden me to fulfil an engagement to practise this profession at Harvard, and the Council of Trinity College have forbidden me to practise it in Cambridge. Under these circumstances it became necessary to me to lecture on some more popular subject, and I prepared a course on the Philosophical Principles of Politics, to be delivered in various provincial towns. As three of these towns are in prohibited areas, I cannot go to them without permission in writing from the War Office. In reply to a request for this permission, I was informed that I must submit the lectures to the War Office censorship. I replied that this was impossible, as they were to be spoken, not read; but I sent the syllabus of the course.
In reply, I received a letter, dated Sept. 13, (1916) acknowledging receipt of the syllabus of lectures, and stating that "in the absence of further details," it was "impossible to advise the Army Council whether they might properly be given during the war." The letter further stated that "such topics as 'The Sphere of Compulsion in Good Government' and 'The Limits of Allegiance to the State' would, in particular, seem to require very careful handling if they are not to be mistaken for propaganda of the type which it is desired to postpone till after the conclusion of hostilities." It concluded by offering to give permission for the lectures if I would give "an honourable undertaking" not "to use them as a vehicle for propaganda."
My proposed course of lectures on "The World as it can be made" is not intended to deal with the immediate issues raised by the war; there will be nothing about the diplomacy preceding the war, about conscientious objectors, about the kind of peace to be desired, or even about the general ethics of war. On all these topics I have expressed myself often already. My intention is to take the minds of my hearers off the questions of the moment, and to suggest the kind of hopes and ideals that ought to inspire reconstruction after the war.
But when I am requested by the military authorities to give an "honourable undertaking," as regards my lectures, that I will not "use them as a vehicle for propaganda," I am quite unable to do so, for the following reasons:
First and foremost, because I cannot acknowledge the right of the War Office to prevent me from expressing my opinions on political subjects. If I say anything which they think prejudicial to the conduct of the war, they can imprison me under the Defence of the Realm Act, but that is a proceeding to which I am not a party, and for which I have no responsibility. If, however, I enter into a bargain by which I secure certain advantages in return for a promise, I am precluded from further protest against their tyranny. Now it is just as imperative a duty to me to fight against tyranny at home as it is to others to fight against the Germans abroad. I will not, on any consideration, surrender one particle of spiritual liberty. Physical liberty can be taken from a man, but spiritual liberty is his birthright, of which all the armies and governments of the world are powerless to deprive him without his co-operation.
Apart from this argument of principle, which is hardly of a kind to appeal to militaries, there are other more practical reasons for not giving such an undertaking as is required. My lectures will be spoken, not read, and will no doubt be followed by questions. It is impossible to be absolutely certain what one will say when one speaks extempore; and it would be obviously absurd, in reply to an awkard question, to say "I am under an honourable undertaking not to answer that question." Even if these difficulties could be overcome, it is utterly impossible to know what would be covered by such an undertaking, since there is no precise definition of the propaganda to be avoided, and no indication as to whether only certain conclusions are forbidden, or also the premises from which they can be deduced. May I say that I consider homicide usually regrettable? If so, since the majority of homicides occur in war, I have uttered a pacifist sentiment. May I say that I have a respect for the ethical teaching of Christ? If I do, the War Office may tell me that I am praising conscientious objectors. May I say that I do not hold Latimer and Ridley guilty of grave moral turpitude because they broke the law? Or would such a statement be prejudicial to discipline in His Majesty's Forces? To such questions there is no end.
If the authorities at the War Office were capable of philosophical reflection, they would see an interesting refutation of militarist beliefs in the terror with which a handful of pacifists appears to have inspired them. They have on their side the armed forces, the law, the press, and a vast majority of the public. The views which we advocate are held by few, and expressed by still fewer. To meet the material force on their side we have only the power of the spoken or written word, of the appeal from passion to reason, from fear to hope, from hate to love. Nevertheless, they fear us—such is the power of spiritual things even in the present welter of brute force.
LONDON PRESS COMMENTS
"Daily News," September 2, 1916
The Government appear to be using a power given for purely military purposes to compass an end which is in no conceivable sense military. It is impossible to believe that Mr. Russell's lectures in themselves could have been prejudicial to any military object. If graver suspicions are entertained against him, the course pursued was even more manifestly foolish and unjust. In that case, evidence should have been procured of the charges against him, and he should have been arrested and put on his trial. Instead the Government have preferred to treat an Englishman of distinction as though he were an alien of suspicious antecedents, presuming apparently on the unpopularity of his views to protect their conduct from inconvenient criticism. It is a most alarming culmination to a process which has been becoming for long increasingly unmistakable."
"Manchester Guardian," September 2, 1916
"The order issued forbidding the Hon. Bertrand Russell from going into any 'prohibited area' would be a little laughable if it were not also decidedly humiliating. What object it can be supposed to serve we have not the remotest idea . . . . . . If only Providence would favour the War Office in dealing with such matters with a touch of humour, or if it cannot spare it, a modicum of common sense!"
September 5, 1916, H. W. Massingham in a letter to the "Times"
"It is a gross libel, and an advertisement to the world that the administration of the Defence of the Realm Regulations is in the hands of men who do not understand their business. Incidentally, their action deprives Mr. Russell, already debarred from entering the United States, of the power of earning his livelihood by arranged lectures on subjects unconnected with the war. The Times is the most active supporter of that war; but its support is intelligent, and it speaks as the mouthpiece of the country's intelligence as well as of its force. May I therefore appeal to it to use its great influence to discourage the persecution of an Englishman of whose accomplishments and character the nation may well be proud, even in the hour when his conscientious conclusions are not accepted by it?"
"Westminster Gazette," September 5, 1916
"We sympathise strongly with the protest made by Mr. W. H. Massingham in a letter to the Times against the order forbidding Mr. Bertrand Russell to reside in any military area in the United Kingdom. We need not say that Mr. Bertrand Russell's views regarding the war are not ours, but we recognise in him a man of high intellectual distinction, and one who, however wrongheaded he may be about the war, and its origins, would be incapable of any such action as is contemplated in the prohibitions of the Defence of the Realm Act. In this case a wrong use is being made of the powers of the military authorities to persecute a man who is capable of high service to the nation in literary and scientific fields."
"Daily News," September 16, 1916
". . . Now there may be a case for forbidding Mr. Russell to continue his propaganda. There may be a still better case for prosecuting him—a much honester way of dealing with him. But, if his activities are a peril to the State, it is ridiculous to pretend that, while perilous in maritime towns, they will be harmless further inland—a danger in Brighton but not in Birmingham, in Hull but not in Halifax. The official mind as it has been revealed in the explanation—and, the other day, in the 'rounding up' explanation—would have bewildered even so cunning a psychologist as William James. The one thing that is painfully clear in the whole business is that the War Office is putting the Defence of the Realm Act to irritating and arbitrary uses such as the House of Parliament never intended, and such as are indefensible on grounds of common sense."
The "Nation," September 16, 1916
". . . . A second example lies before us of this military attempt at the destruction of free thought and of its legitimate and necessary means of expression. We referred last week to the War Office interdict, the object of which is to prohibit Mr. Bertrand Russell from delivering a series of arranged lectures on political philosophy . . . the War Office came to the conclusion that Mr. Russell's treatment of them might be regarded as 'propaganda.' . . . Therefore it decided that unless Mr. Russell would pledge himself to abstain from using these ancient intellectual symbols as a 'vehicle for propaganda,' he should be forbidden to deal with them at all. There indeed the interrogation stops. These military metaphysicians omit to specify what 'propaganda' they wish to stop. Probably the propaganda of Thought, which has never been popular at the War Office. The nation which rushed into the fray with the one watchword of 'freedom' on its lips is to sit mumchance, when—looking through and beyond the mists of war—its ablest and most honest minds seek to find some foothold for its thinking. Or, if it thinks, it must only think one way."
March 1, 1917. The Publishers.