[Sir Frederick Pollock, distinguished jurist.] Autograph Letter Signed ('F. Pollock') to Dr Maurice Ernest, discussing the question of arms control, preferring the term 'Limitation of armaments' to 'disarmament'.

Author: 
Sir Frederick Pollock (1845-1937), distinguished jurist and Cambridge Apostle, author of 'The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I' [Maurice Ernest, biologist; arms control; disarmament]
Publication details: 
27 April 1907. On letterhead of the Athenaeum, Pall Mall [London].
£120.00
SKU: 22863

2pp, 4to. In good condition, lightly aged. Folded several times. Small slip of paper with printed biographical entry on Pollock laid down at top left of first page. With several corrections giving the appearance of a draft, but from the papers of the recipient, the Austrian-born biologist Maurice Ernest (1872-1955). An interesting discussion of the question of arms control by a leading jurist in the years preceding the First World War. He begins by stating: 'Limitation of armaments is, as you rightly suggest, the only practical term. Disarmanent would - among other objections - leave the high seas without police. I may add that the useful and humane work done by naval and military men in time of peace is little known to the general public.' He points out that the 'desirability, in principle, of limiting armaments by mutual consent has been accepted ever since the Hague Conference of 1399 [sic, for 1899]'. The great difficulties in carrying such a plan into execution cannot be overcome except by 'a direct understanding between the Powers chiefly concerned', and he doubts whether 'journalistic discussion of the possible details of such an arrangement be not more likely to do harm than good'. It seems obvious to him that 'none of the Powers would consent to be bound by any resolution of the Hague Conference or any similar congress on a subject so nearly touching their vital interests, and so little capable of being dealt with by merely statistical comparisons'. Against this he suggests that 'future understanding might be prepared in some measure by impartial expert inquiry', and he thinks that 'if the Hague Conference resolved to direct such an inquiry, the fact of the resolution itself, and the more or less authoritative discussion that must precede it, would in the meantime have a moral effect of considerable value'. The library of Chicago University holds a collection of Dr Ernest's papers.