Nobody wants a European War. But there are numbers of confusing and contradictory expedients advocated in order to prevent it. Underlying all is fear—one may almost say terror—of the destructive capacity of modern engines of war. No ons now is safe, not even the high governmental authorities who hitherto have been able to direct hosti in safety from a distance. Destruction ana loss of life on a large scale are not all that is feared. Considerable as these are bound to be, judging even by the comparatively small instances in the wars now being waged between ill-equipped forces, the widespread alarm and ghastly panic which must ensue from bombardment by highly equipped air forces may -produce unimaginable results undermining the whole order of our present civilization. In fact, the nations—indeed humanity itself—is contemplating it pending doom. Man's ingenuity ha: outrun his moral sense and, t he watches the development of the work of his own hands; not the so-called act oft God—the earthquake, the flood or the volcanic eruption, for which he has no responsibility—but a far more devastating scourge which he has himself invented and prepared. All defences must be puny and ineffective, and preparations for still greater violence can only add more fuel to the flames. Salvation can only be found in a supreme moral endeavour to guide man's mind into another direction. This requires greater effort, morg courage and more determination than appears to be conceivable, judg. ing by the acquiescent drift towards theabyss which one and all see staring before them.
These words of Lord Ponsonby's introducing an article in the "Nineteenth Century and After" on "The Present Outlook" is a sufficiently graphic description of what warfare will amount to in the future, and the devastation it may wreak upon civilization, to add point to the important statement which Mr. Neville Chamberlain made on Tuesday, in the House'of Commons on the subject of aerial warfare. Not only does it add point, but it gives very real reasons while the world should again attempt to bring about some international code governing aerial warfare whereby "much of its horror may be mitigated.
Students of military science have witnessed a considerable change of opinion regarding warfare since the Great War. It may be perfectly true that, generally speaking, the introduction of new weapons has not meant the fashioning of new laws, but there has been a decided departure from ihe old concepts of war, and the formulation of brutal doctrines which are given by their sponsors all the dignity of military necessity. Thus has arisen the theory that in the future not armies but whole peoples will be at war, that it will no longer be necessary to differentiate between the soldier and the civilian, and that, based on such a proposition, the destruction of civilian life in sufficient quantity to strike dismay and demoralization into the enemy is the best means of securing speedy victory. The arrival of the aeroplane has had much to do with the formation of that doctrine, and unfortunately, if it is to be generally accepted, it must carry with it the corollary that the best defence in such a case would be one of reprisal. The bestial picture is thereby conjured up of the armed forces of the nations seeking to wrest victory out of the sufferings they can inflict upon the defenceless civilian. The world has seen enough of this sort of thing in China and Spain to realize what will happen if well-equipped nations enter into conflict, The desolation which has been spread in Spain and China would be as nothing compared with what would be wrought in such circumstances, and the time has come for mankind to take stock of the situation and seek to discover what can be done to prevent the wholesale suicide of a great civilization. It may prove a bootless mission to explore ways and means of preventing war becoming even more horrible than it is at the present time, but there is clearly a duty laid upon the shoulders of statesmen of today to find methods whereby the rule of tooth and claw shall be prevented from again dominating the world.
Mr. Chamberlain has rightly pointed out that the principles underlying certain rules of International Law, established for land and marine warfare are applicable to com-hat in the air. It is wrong to bomb civilians; the only permissible targets must be military objectives capable of identification as such, and even then reasonable care must be taken in attacking them. These are inferences to-be drawn from the state of International Law as it at present stands, and, were they generally accepted, there would be little need for the new code which the British Prime Minister contemplates drafting for submission to the rest of the world. Whatever he may prepare will receive a mixed reception. The new school of military thought, relying upon terrorism to secure military objectives will naturally oppose being deprived of the most potent weapon for the prosecution of their policy. Despite all the object lessons which have been given, showing that all the needless slaughter which has been brought about by indiscriminate bombing produces no speedy demoralizing effect, it is doubtful whether that type of thought would ever permit the rule of law to be applied to the conduct of such warfare, and that thought is justified by the evidence of trends in the opposite direction. That should not be taken as indicating that no attempt should be made to codify laws controlling aerial warfare. The fact that in the past other rules have been more or less observed, suggests that the new ones might secure something of that treatment, though it is by no means sure, should the world ever again embark upon hostili ties, that either they or their predecessors would stand up long against what might be conceived to be the military necessities of a given situation. Nevertheless no opportunity should be missed of reducing the possible inhumaneness of future wars, and, if the nations of the world can be persuaded io accept such a code as Mr. Chamberlain contemplates, the time may also be not far distant when means will be found for coerce ing transgressors into better ways. Without some such provision the new code might prove as valueless as quite a number of other international agreements, Fast Scoring Hitting out in the characteristic manner which gained him admiration in the eyes of English cricket crowds but which was unfortunately absent in the first Test match, Don Bradman, the Australian skipper, playin; against Lancashire at Manchester, made 101 in 73 minutes thereby establishing a new record for fast scoring this season, This included 13 boundaries, and, therefore, the cricketing public's slight annoyance in the recent Test should be appeased and expunged from record for Bradman's sparkling play has been one of the most attractive developments of the present cricket generation. Nevertheless, there hav been better performances in the game which, this ar, has resulted in all sorts of new records. Playing for Notts against Sussex at Brighton in 1911, Alletson scored 189 out of This included eight and ten 2's. This was equalled by G.L. Jessop in the Gentleman of the South v. Players of the South at Hastings in 1907 when he scored 191 out of 234 runs also in ninety minutes. This included five 6's and thirty 4's P.G.H. Fender playing for Surrey against Northamptonshire at Northampton in 1920 hit 113 runs in 42 minutes and this score included five 6's and sixteen 4s. He reached his century after 35 minutes' batting. These, of course, are phenomenal performances for since 1934 when Sir Walter Lawrence presented his trophy for the quickest hundred of the season the lowest time of the winners has been 63 minutes, but even then it ought to silence the popular clamour for faster and brighter cricket,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.