deserve it—­but do not imagine that by cutting those nations out of the world’s commerce the other nations can be rendered more wealthy.”  These general statements do not exclude, of course, the possibility that it may be found necessary for a time by “economic pressure” to secure performance by the enemy of certain terms, nor that, during a period of reconstruction and readjustment, the conditions affecting certain industries may not demand some special temporary protection for them.  There may for a time have to be restrictions on certain imports from the enemy countries, and on certain exports to them, but all such proposals ought to be very jealously scrutinised, not only in regard to their effect on the particular trades directly affected, but on the country as a whole.  The use of such weapons often injures those who use them more than those against whom they are used.  Would not a German Minister of Propaganda, or a German Committee on War Aims, wishing to stimulate active support for the War among the German masses, be well advised to circulate some of the resolutions that have been passed by certain bodies in England and scatter them broadcast in Central Europe, with a few careful glosses and comments to point the moral?  They would be a valuable asset for a German “ginger group.”  The open door into and out of this country for commodities generally has made it an emporium for world trade, and been one of the main causes why, in spite of deficient home production of necessaries, we have been able to stand the economic strain of the War.  Striking off the fetters that it has been found necessary to impose—­sometimes with undue strictness and pedantic minuteness—­on British commerce and industry will be one of the first things to be hoped for from peace.  It is impossible to give detailed examples here.  Ask any merchant, he will give you specific instances of the need for a recovered freedom.  Questions are so closely involved with each other that we may seem to be mixing up national trade interests with the ideal striving for peace and goodwill.  Yet, after all, self-interest rightly understood and regard for the interests of others, with an honest wish for their welfare, are not feelings mutually exclusive.  There is high authority for saying that “serving the Lord” is not incompatible with “diligence in business.”

It is quite possible to lay too much stress on the necessity for definite and formal sanctions to enforce agreements.  There are cases in which the enforcement of a definite penalty for a wrongful act or for breach of an agreement is very difficult, but in which the “sense of moral obligation,” “respect for public opinion,” and “reliance on principles of mutual consent” do regularly operate so strongly that the rules of conduct laid down are in fact observed.  On the Manchester Exchange thousands of agreements involving millions of money are made, the breach of which could not be made the ground of a successful action at law.  The number