With the invention of firearms battlefield surgery faced new problems, notably hemorrhage, and took a step forward to meet these altered conditions.  It was a French surgeon who solved the problem of hemorrhage by tying the torn blood vessels above the injury.  To England goes the credit for the prevention of sepsis, as far as it may be prevented on a battlefield.

As far as it may be prevented on a battlefield!  For that is the question that confronts the machinery of mercy to-day.  Transportation to the hospitals has been solved, to a large extent, by motor ambulances, by hospital trains, by converted channel steamers connecting the Continent with England.  Hospitals in the western field of war are now plentiful and some are well equipped.  The days of bedding wounded men down on straw are largely in the past, but how to prevent the ravages of dirt, the so-called “dirt diseases” of gaseous gangrene, blood poisoning, tetanus, is the problem.

I did not see the first exchange of hopelessly wounded prisoners that took place at Flushing, while I was on the Continent.  It must have been a tragic sight.  They lined up in two parties at the railroad station, German surgeons and nurses with British prisoners, British surgeons and nurses with German prisoners.

Then they were counted off, I am told.  Ten Germans came forward, ten British, in wheeled chairs, on crutches, the sightless ones led.  The exchange was made.  Then ten more, and so on.  What a sight!  What a horror!  No man there would ever be whole again.  There were men without legs, without arms, blind men, men twisted by fearful body wounds.  Two hundred and sixteen British officers and men, and as many Germans, were exchanged that day.

“They were, however, in the best of spirits,” said the London Times of the next day!

At Folkestone a crowd was waiting on the quay, and one may be sure that heads were uncovered as the men limped, or were led or wheeled, down the gang-plank.  Kindly English women gave them nosegays of snowdrops and violets.

And then they went on—­to what?  For a few weeks, or months, they will be the objects of much kindly sympathy.  In the little towns where they live visitors will be taken to see them.  The neighbourhood will exert itself in kindness.  But after a time interest will die away, and besides, there will be many to divide sympathy.  The blind man, or the man without a leg or an arm, will cease to be the neighbourhood’s responsibility and will become its burden.

What then?  For that is the problem that is facing each nation at war—­to make a whole life out of a fragment, to teach that the spirit may be greater than the body, to turn to usefulness these sad and hopeless by-products of battlefields.