D 524 
 I 0718 
 
 Copy 2 
 
 Delivered by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Charles Gore, 
 Lord Bishop of Oxford, and Mr. George 
 Wharton Pepper at a Luncheon Given in 
 Honor of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Charles Gore 
 at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia, 
 Mr. Joseph Widener Presiding, 
 
 IP 
 
 Thursday, October Thirty-first, 1 9 1 8 
 
Addresses Delivered by the 
 
 RT. REV. DR. CHARLES GORE 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD 
 
 and 
 
 MR. GEORGE WHARTON PEPPER 
 
 at a Luncheon given in Honor of the 
 
 RT. REV. DR. CHARLES GORE 
 
 at the RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL, Philadelphia 
 
 Thursday, October Thirty- first 
 Nineteen Eighteen 
 
 MR. JOSEPH WIDENER Presiding 
 

 
COMMITTEE 
 
 Mr. Thomas DeWitt Cuyler 
 
 Mr. Samuel S. Fleisher 
 
 Mr. John Gribbel 
 
 Mr. George Wharton Pepper 
 
 Mr. Eli Kirk Price 
 
 Mr. Charles M. Schwab 
 
 Mr. Wm. Ellis Scull 
 Mr. E. T. Stotesbury 
 Mr. John Wanamaker 
 Mr. Joseph Widener 
 Mr. James Willcox 
 Mr. Charlton Yarnall 
 
Addresses at Luncheon in Honor of the Right Reverend 
 Dr. Charles Gore, Lord Bishop of Oxford, who is in 
 this country with the approval of the British Government, 
 on the invitation of the National Committee on the Moral 
 Aims of the War. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Widener: Gentlemen, I am going to ask Mr 
 George Wharton Pepper to introduce our distinguished guest, 
 the Lord Bishop of Oxford. 
 
 Mr. George Wharton Pepper: Mr. Widener and Gentlemen: 
 I take it that I may say on your behalf that it is always with 
 pleasure that we extend a greeting to a distinguished represen- 
 tative of Great Britain, but that we take a special pleasure in 
 extending such a greeting to the guest who is honoring us with 
 his presence today, and in extending it to him at this particular 
 time. 
 
 Of all the venerated institutions of England, it sometimes 
 seems to me that we Americans have a peculiar feeling for the 
 ancient universities of Cambridge and Oxford; and if either of 
 them can eclipse the other in the estimation of Americans, it 
 is Oxford. Oxford drives her roots far back into the past; and 
 the way in which she has persisted among all the changes and 
 chances of this mortal life has sometimes seemed to me to be a 
 symbol of that quiet, patient perseverance, undaunted by any 
 obstacle which has brought it about in every European war 
 that victory has ultimately perched upon the banners of that 
 side for which the men of England have been fighting. 
 
 And therefore it seems to me that I must be speaking your 
 mind when I express peculiar gratification that we have with 
 us today one whose whole life has been identified with the life 
 of Oxford, one who has in no small degree been the source of 
 inspiration of her sons, and one who is himself the embodiment 
 of the Oxford spirit. His coming amongst us at this particular 
 time, I venture to think, is peculiarly significant and happy. 
 
 There are two convictions that are very deep and real with 
 me. One is that nothing but a peace dictated by the victorious 
 allies to a conquered Germany can make for rest to this tired 
 world. And the other is a sentiment that is not so popular and 
 that you will not applaud so much ; the conviction that Germany 
 is today far from a conquered power, and that the hopes which 
 are generally entertained here of an early peace on satisfactory 
 
terms, are entirely unjustified by the military events of the last 
 month, or by the progress of internal events in Germany. 
 
 On both of these points I have reason to think our guest has 
 views of his own; on the subject of a dictated peace, and on 
 the subject of the dangers of undue optimism in wartime, and 
 I hope he will speak his mind. 
 
 And, finally, let me say this: That his coming seems to me to 
 be timely, because his nation, like ours, is face to face with great 
 problems of the education of youth to meet the difficult days 
 that lie ahead of us. The solution may not be the same in each 
 country. In this country I am profoundly convinced that the 
 militaristic spirit is not likely to be a menace within the life- 
 time of any of us now living. Our dangers are of a different sort, 
 and I am one of those who hope that our youth will continue 
 to be trained in respect for discipline and respect for author- 
 ity along those lines that are working out so hopefully with 
 the men who have come under our system of universal service. 
 
 But, whatever the system of training, we all believe that we 
 are not going to accomplish that for which we are fighting 
 merely by the adoption of systems or by the making of inter- 
 national compacts. It will stand and continue to stand as the 
 only hope for the uplift of the world, that there shall be a process 
 of transformation and uplift of the individual man; and it is 
 of the religious philosophy whose aims are nothing short of this 
 that our guest is so distinguished an exponent. In taking my 
 seat, let me say that there never was a moment when it was more 
 important to bind closely the ties between the two great English- 
 speaking nations. We must not allow emotion or enthusiasm 
 over momentary contacts and associations to blind us to the 
 fact that the ties between Great Britain and this country are 
 going to be strained when we sit at the conference table. The 
 conditions after the war are going to increase the strain and 
 not diminish it; and those ties must be held if the life of the two 
 great English-speaking nations is to be preserved. And there 
 is no way in which any tie can be so effectually strengthened as 
 by encouraging these personal and intelligent contacts, which 
 always result in sympathetic understanding between strong 
 men, when they really get an opportunity to know one another; 
 and I know of no other man who can more hopefully establish 
 such an understanding and more firmly bind us to the people 
 of England than the Lord Bishop of Oxford. 
 
Address of the Right Reverend Doctor Charles Gore, 
 Lord Bishop of Oxford 
 
 Mr. Widener, Mr. Pepper and Gentlemen: I do not propose 
 to follow the speaker over the very wide area of topics which he 
 has touched upon, and I am afraid that his estimate of my abil- 
 ities in certain particulars is very much in advance of the facts. 
 
 But it is always delightful to anyone who comes from Oxford 
 to feel the appreciation and warmth of feeling which the name 
 evokes. Mr. Pepper did a bold thing in comparing Cambridge 
 and Oxford, a thing which I would not dare to do. As I do not 
 see any Cambridge men present, if you will promise not to betray 
 me, I cannot forget that forty years ago when the first issue of 
 Baedeker's Guide came out, especially for the use of American 
 visitors, it was stated that no intelligent visitor would be content 
 to leave the country without seeing the ancient Universities of 
 Cambridge and Oxford, — but, if time presses, Cambridge may 
 be omitted. 
 
 But that, after all, is a matter that everybody would not 
 agree to; and for my part, I never go to Cambridge without 
 having my loyalty to Oxford severely shaken. 
 
 It is a pleasure so great that I can hardly describe it, for an 
 Oxford man to come to this country at this particular period. 
 There are certain special reasons why I should feel thrilled to 
 be in this famous city, partly because, as I have no doubt every 
 inhabitant knows, the home of Penn is in Bucks. Few visitors 
 from this city and State but find their way to the original home 
 of the family; and it is my pride and delight to preside over the 
 original from which you take your name. 
 
 And also, if I may say so, it is a great pleasure to a person who 
 is bred in Whig principles, and who was constantly blessed when 
 he was young and told to be a good Christian and a good Whig, 
 to come to the place of the Declaration of Independence. That 
 is constantly supposed to be a rather sore subject with the 
 inhabitants of my country, but I assure you I have been taught 
 history by a very considerable number of more or less intelligent 
 teachers, and when they concern themselves with that period, 
 I don't know one of them that does not point out that the 
 Americans were perfectly right in their controversy, and that 
 indeed they were but asserting the principles which had lain at 
 the heart of our struggle for independence, in our civil wars, 
 
the century before, and which have always been the very basis 
 on which EngHsh liberties have been built. 
 
 But, of course, it is the special circumstances of the moment 
 that make it so thrilling an experience to come to America 
 now. I have said it before, but I must repeat it, as very emphat- 
 ically as I can, that no one who knows something of the history 
 of your country and the diverse elements of the English race 
 under which you are building up a great nation, can fail to be 
 amazed at the degree of unity, in determination and enthusiasm 
 in which in the east and west America is uniting itself in the 
 cause of this war. I think it is something like a modern miracle, 
 and many Americans have said to me since I have been in this 
 country that it is actually a new experience to them that they 
 have never before felt the pulses of national unity beating as 
 they are beating now. 
 
 Then, of course, as I feel all that is going on around me, I 
 glow with the desire that as England and America are now 
 co-operating in a great cause, so there should arise out of that 
 co-operation, a fellowship of sentiment, the like of which has 
 never existed between us. I was privileged to be in the senate 
 some month or five weeks ago when the French Ambassador, 
 Mr. Jusserand, presented those beautiful vases of china, as a 
 gift from France; and he made a very eloquent speech in which 
 he was bold to say that sentiment was the most powerful thing 
 in human life. Then he described the sentiment which has 
 always united America and France; and he named the name of 
 the man who always in your country, I notice, elicits more 
 enthusiastic applause than any name except among the greatest 
 of your own statesmen — I mean the name of Lafayette. 
 
 But, of course, during this time I was conscious that I felt 
 and was even meant to feel, a little light of it. Well, now, I 
 love France, and I always have, its literature and its genius; 
 and I do not desire that that tie of sentiment which has united 
 America to France should be in any kind of way either loosened 
 or dimmed; but I do from my heart desire that out of the co- 
 operation in the great cause which is now uniting England and 
 America there should spring, as I fancy there generally does 
 spring from co-operation, both among individuals and among 
 the nations, the same sort of sentiment that has bound you to 
 France. The President of the Senate defined the feeling of 
 America toward France, on the occasion I referred to, as arising 
 
out of the sense that many nations have contributed to America 
 since America has been strong and great and flourishing, but that 
 France was the nation which was of assistance when America 
 was struggling and weak. 
 
 Now, we represent, of course, a great principle; and I fancy 
 America and England have felt their need of one another and 
 their dependence upon one another. I tell you we in England 
 feel our need of you, and I never remember the kind of national 
 sigh of relief such as escaped from us when we knew you had 
 come in, and we felt there would be behind us the almost 
 unlimited resources of America to accomplish what we had 
 half done, when we were, as we thought, beginning to fail in 
 the almost unaccomplishable task. We shall never forget the 
 debt of gratitude, and what ever shall be the place assigned to 
 America in the ultimate victory, I do not believe there will be 
 any jealousy on our part. 
 
 And then I have no doubt that you know, as indeed I have so 
 constantly heard it expressed, the debt which you owe through 
 all those weary four first years of the war to our armies as well 
 as those of Belgium and France, and to our vast silent fleet. 
 And it is this tie of mutual obligations in face of great necessity 
 out of which I do look for the building up of a better understand- 
 ing between the two great nations, such an understanding, 
 rooted as it is, in the unity in large part of our language and 
 literature, as I believe will be to the welfare of both the countries 
 concerned and the whole world. 
 
 I have been sent to this country, or brought to this country 
 to speak about the moral aims of the war. That is my com- 
 mission ; and certainly every day I live amidst the extraordinarily 
 moving tidings that seem to presage victory in the immediate 
 future, I feel the necessity of doing anything that lies in my 
 power to keep in men's view why we are fighting, not merely in 
 the background of their minds, but constantly prominent. I 
 agree wholly with what was said just now, about the perils of 
 an excessive optimism. We have had many disillusions and 
 many disappointments in England, and I can see that in this 
 country you are more naturally disposed to optimism than we 
 are. It may be that the end is very close, but it also may not 
 be. What I am, above all things, anxious for, is that Germany 
 should understand, not that the end is close, but that we are 
 determined with an unconquerable resolution that whether 
 
the end is close or whether it is far off, this war is going on until 
 it ends in a defeat so signal that it must be acknowledged by 
 all the world. And that it must discredit with its own people 
 that military despotism which hitherto has ruled the destinies 
 of Germany. 
 
 Then, what are we fighting for — to defeat Germany, only 
 why — ? And it is there that I think what has been so constantly 
 said by our great statesmen needs to be perpetually pushed to 
 the front in men's minds, that it is — and I am repeating the 
 words of our statesmen of all parties, and I think the same would 
 be true in this country — that this is a war against war; because, 
 I am not at all convinced that the meaning of this has been 
 adequately taken in on all sides. It means that there is no 
 disaster conceivably so great as that this war should end in a 
 consummate victory, in a peace never so satisfactory, dictated 
 by the allied nations to Germany, and by them perforce accepted, 
 and in a rearranged Europe, with boundaries — new boundaries — 
 never so successfully drawn — and that the nations should then 
 return, or their representatives, to their own homes leading 
 the nations to build up again armies and armies against one 
 another, and after a period during which they would recover 
 from the exhaustion of the war, begin again to eye one another 
 with suspicion and wait until another war should break out. 
 Truly I believe that it is not an exaggeration to say that the 
 very foundation of the slowly built-up civilization of Europe 
 and of America would be imperilled. 
 
 I remember reading Hilare B. Lock's extremely clever sketch 
 which he published at the beginning of the war, during some 
 excitement in England, in which he described so imaginatively 
 say some 3000 A.D., the beginnings of the recovery of civiliza- 
 tion — and which was looking back upon the total eclipse of 
 civilization that had been in the dark ages which, I think, began 
 about 1925, the dark ages that had followed peace after the 
 nations that had talked about peace had done nothing to secure 
 it, and had come back to their own countries and found them- 
 selves involved in labor wars and troubled social conditions. 
 Meanwhile they had been eyeing one another with suspicion 
 and European wars had broken out, first in the Balkans, then 
 elsewhere, then elsewhere; and finally there had been another 
 European war and that had been too much for civilization, and 
 the world had broken down. 
 
 10 
 
It was very amusing, because it was very skillful; but I totally 
 failed to be amused. I had contemplated the eclipse of civiliza- 
 tion, as I read history, without any particular thrill because of 
 being so far off from the empires that came so close to ruin ; but 
 now it touched too close. I feel sure it is the wisest who, like 
 our Lord Grey, do feel that civilization is at stake unless the 
 nations can get rid of any such atmosphere and conditions as 
 would cause them to use all the resources and time to build 
 up armaments and armaments 
 
 Now, if that is to be done, how is it to be done? There is 
 only one scheme clearly before the world. It has been outlined 
 in practically identical lines by statesmen in both parties amongst 
 us, by Lord Grey and by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour and 
 others — Lord Price, a notable man, who has been notably to 
 the fore in the matter; and in France by some of the best men, 
 and the French Foreign office and our Foreign Office are working 
 out the scheme in detail; and, of course, this country, your 
 President has made himself its prophet, and as far as I can see 
 there is no substantial difference in the matter between the 
 scheme of your President and the scheme of Mr. Taft; and they 
 are all enthusiastic about it. But constantly as I go about in 
 this country I feel, as I felt in my own country, that people have 
 not thought enough about it, and that it will not effectively 
 come about unless behind the statesmen there is the enthusiasm 
 of the people. 
 
 Now, in England we have got the enthusiasm of the soldiers. 
 Our soldiers who have been fighting these four years loathe the 
 war. For them the gilt is entirely off the ginger bread. There 
 are no pessimists in the world like the British tommies, no 
 men in the world so determined that this war shall be a war 
 against war; and on the whole I think our proletariat, our 
 laboring people, with whom I have a good deal to do, I think 
 they are absolutely solid on the subject. In speaking about it 
 in this country I cannot but wonder whether the elements in 
 opposition or not in somewhat strong force; and what I desire 
 from my heart is not to seek to impose any thought of my own 
 on people but to get people to really think about the matter 
 and to see what is at stake. 
 
 I thought that your President's speech of five weeks ago in 
 New York was an epoch-making speech, because it defined with 
 such precision the very elements of difficulty among the League 
 
 11 
 
of Nations; because, if the League of Nations comes about it 
 will be a new epoch. Hitherto the nations have fought for their 
 own liberty — Servia, Italy, France and Belgium, and America; 
 but each, on the whole, was helped; England helped Italy, and 
 so on; France helped America, each fighting for its own liberty, 
 and each maintaining a certain proud independence. We know 
 very well with what pride you in America claimed and maintained 
 your independence, and asked what you had to do with the 
 squabbles of effete kings so many thousands of miles over the 
 Atlantic. Now we have all found our mistake. The world is 
 too small for this sort of independence. You have found it out. 
 The means of communication have become such that you cannot 
 separate yourselves even though the Atlantic separates you, 
 the world has become too small ; and at this moment a new thing 
 is happening, a new thing in the history of the world. That is 
 to say, the free nations of the world are allied to fight not for 
 the liberty of any one but for the liberty of the world. And the 
 great problem of the weeks that are to come — as soon, that is 
 to say, as negotiations begin, is whether this liberty is going to 
 be maintained, which is one principle of the League of Nations. 
 For you are to know that since the Renaissance the jurists have 
 built up a theory of national sovereignty which was, if I may say, 
 atomic, each nation free from any interference outside of its 
 own borders. 
 
 That was closely akin to the principle of individualism as 
 regards the individual; and now the moment has arrived when 
 there is a new and tremendous claim to be made upon the 
 nations, namely, that as the individual must recognize that 
 there is the individual right over the rights of property, so, 
 over every individual right there is the welfare of the whole 
 community, over every individual nation there is the welfare 
 of the whole body of nations. That we do not intend that 
 once again one nation shall be able to throw the whole world 
 into confusion, to drench it in blood. 
 
 Now, we are not such fools, I suppose, as to try to lead you 
 to believe that Germany alone has entertained illegitimate 
 ambitions. Why, those very secret treaties published by the 
 Bolsheviki two or three years ago — what do they show? This, 
 at least, that other nations besides Germany have been entertain- 
 ing illegitimate ambitions of domination. You know the history 
 of the Balkans. You know the history of European nations. 
 
 12 
 
Are we such fools as to suppose that no other Nation is going 
 to be drunk again with ambition? No. What we want to secure 
 is the safety of the whole world against the ambition of one, 
 that we will not depend again upon a system of alliances which 
 will have the whole world trembling on the verge of war, and 
 arming itself as if war was immediately possible. Yet it is a 
 claim you make that it does demand a modification of that 
 principle of national sovereignty. If you take the principles 
 as agreed upon in England, by Asquith and Balfour and Grey — 
 and by your President, point for point, with some modifica- 
 tions — not what you call the reasonable independence of 
 nations but just some modification in their international relations 
 as regards the court of reconciliation, the court of arbitration — 
 and in the court of arbitration about questions of honor, and the 
 system of representation, which is a very difficult and delicate 
 matter as affecting large nations and small — and the economic 
 punishment to be employed against one recalcitrant member, 
 and not to be applied except in the case of a recalcitrant member, 
 and reduction of armies, the proportionable reduction of armies, 
 and the international police — but all that is a large order, you 
 see. 
 
 I don't believe that the statesmen can carry it out unless 
 they have got the real mind of the thinking public behind them, 
 and I see a great tendency of people to say "Let us fight this 
 war through, and then we can think about it." But, my friends, 
 after the war, immediately after the war, the representatives 
 of nations will meet, and peace will be drawn upon some basis. 
 Upon what basis, then? Will it be drawn on the right basis? 
 If not, for my part, I seriously do not see how our civilization 
 can escape. The whole world will be driven into militarism and 
 military preparation. Before our reasonable, practical statesmen 
 make a proposal what I want is to see that the minds of men 
 should be prepared for the sacrifices which are necessary for 
 any such League of Nations to maintain, ensure and enforce 
 peace. 
 
 Now, I appeal to three things: I appeal, first of all, to the sort 
 of hope which springs out of despair; because truly — I know Lord 
 Grey's mind very intimately on this subject, and I do not believe 
 there is any man who has been more versed in the inter-political 
 situation in Europe, — if after the war the nations were to be 
 left to build up armaments again against one another, and watch 
 
 13 
 
one another with a jealous hostility, we cannot but contem- 
 plate the future with despair. Unless Europe will make the 
 step forward of recognizing a supernational authority, it looks 
 as if the resources of science would serve for nothing but to 
 destroy mankind. He does feel that the whole future of our 
 civilization is in jeopardy. He has said it quite properly — 
 I do not believe he is exaggerating one bit. But we are de- 
 termined, I hope, that our civilization shall not perish. We 
 are determined that the free nations shall not give themselves 
 up to militarism. We are determined that the resources of our 
 civilization shall not go to build us up — and now America — 
 into great armed camps. And there springs out of that determ- 
 ination a hope, a hope which is bred of despair, because if we 
 are resolved at all, we are resolved that that shall not be. 
 
 I believe that the greatest prophet of modern democracy was 
 Joseph Mazzini. And among other reasons I believe he was 
 great because he always insisted that no solid social fabric could 
 be built upon an assertion of rights but only upon a recognition 
 of duties. 
 
 He told them that they must look to something above nations. 
 And I believe it is solely the democracies that are taking that in; 
 and I know something of our working people in England. I 
 believe they are determined in that respect. The very last thing 
 in the world I want is to see a war of sentiment between labor 
 and capital, which shall coincide with the sentiment of 
 peace, on the one side, and of military preparations on the other. 
 I can conceive of no disaster in my own country — I don't attempt 
 to speak for yours — greater than that in the years that are coming 
 the laboring people should be for the League of Nations and that 
 it should appear that the great interests have been against it. 
 I think that would be more liable to bring revolution; but from 
 my heart I hope there will be freedom and justice within the 
 nation. I think it was Erasmus who in the Sixteenth Century 
 noted first that war was always made between autocracies and 
 democracies, and the common people are in favor of peace. 
 And on the whole, in spite of exceptions, I believe that to be 
 true. 
 
 But I want to appeal to the Church of Christ. The Church 
 of Christ has forgotten so ludicrously that it is a Catholic institu- 
 tion, that it ought never to be understood to be in favor of 
 National war; that if it is to be true in any way to Christ and 
 
 14 
 
St. Paul it is to be a fellowship of all Nations, binding them 
 together by a tie closer even than the tie of blood. We have 
 been lamentably forgetful of our Catholic vocation, but I think 
 we have an opportunity now. 
 
 Now the League of Nations is far different from the Catholic 
 Church, but I believe the League of Nations, based on the 
 National and International fraternity of men, would be a step 
 so far ahead in the awakening of entire Christendom that it 
 will be not only supported by National interest but shall reach 
 back to the establishment of International fellowship. 
 
 So, it is upon the hope which springs in the hearts of all men 
 for civilization; and it is to the great feeling of democracy and 
 to the instinct of the Christian church I desire to appeal. But 
 I am not in the least satisfied that at present the Church is 
 fulfilling its duties. I think in my country the Church is simply 
 uttering the ordinary feelings of the men on the street — legitimate 
 feelings, but not the feelings of the Church of Christ, that this 
 is a war against war, and that there is no way to secure us against 
 war except the establishment of peace on a basis which shall 
 make it free from dissensions and shall organize the League of Free 
 Nations on the International, Supernational fellowship of men. 
 
 15 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 021 547 598 •