The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1912. MACHIAVELLIANISM.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1580, 25 October 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1912. MACHIAVELLIANISM.

A cablegram published in The Dominion a few days ago referring to Herk Maximilian Hakden's new book entitled Monarchs and Men states, among other interesting things, that the late King Edward was the Machiavelli of anti-German policy, who took pleasure in paralysing German diplomacy. To the man in the street the word Machiavellianism conveys a vague impression of something shockingly sinister and wholly improper, for Machiavelli is generally regarded as only one remove from the Devil himself. To the historian, however, Machiavelli is quite a respectable person. He was one of the principal influences which directed the course of international politics in Europe for some two hundred years (1600-1800). He was a great advocate of national efficiency, and from this point of view he held, in practice if not in theory, that the end justifies the means. Tho , political ' writers who preceded Machiavelli laid down the theory that the dealings of nation with nation should be regulated by some philosophy of right—a kind of natural law; and it is this idea that Machiavelli threw overboard. In his book on the development of"political thought entitled From Gcrson to Grotius, Mr. Figgis tells us that, "to Machiavelli tho State is an end in itself; the restraints of natural law seem mere moonshine to a man of his posilif habit; and he substitutes the practical conceptions of reasons-of State as a ground of all Government action, and the balance of power as the goal of all international efforts, J in place of the ancient ideals, inefficient enough but not. insignificant, of internal justice and international unity." Broadly speaking, Machiavellianism means that in the relations between one nation and another the ordinary ideas of right and wrong have no force or meaning, although these ideas are binding for private individuals. Machiavelli's theories have not influenced the internal development of European nations to anything like the same extent as they have directed the policy of nations in their external relations. It cannot be denied that Machiavellianism still dominates international diplomacy, and it is difficult to see how, under present conditions, it can bo altogether abandoned. It is nonmoral, rather than immoral. To the statesman the safety of the people must be tho supreme law, and in times of great emergency ordinary rules must sometimes be set aside; but, as Mr. Figois points out. the error of Machiavelli and his followers consists in making this principle tho normal rule for the guidance of statesmen. This results in the perpetual suspension of the habeas corpus acts of the human race. "It is not the removal of restraints under extraordinary emergencies that is the fallacy of Machiavelli, it is the erection of this removal into an ordinary and everyday rule of action which it is quixotic oven to desire to alter. . . . The danger of Machiavellianism is that it demands of the individual in the service of the community the sacrifice, not merely of his purse or his person, but also of his conscience." Leaving the theoretical consideration of Machiavellianism and its consequences, the question naturally arises whether it is true, as Hemi Hakden states, that the late King Edward was the Machiavelli of anti-German policy. Was King Edward in his international diplomacy actuated by sheer hostility to Germany, or was he merely doing his best to safeguard the interests of his own country! Herr Harden takes the former view, and there can be no doubt that in doing so ho voices the feelings of a very large section of the German people. The latter alternative is, however, the more probable, and seoms to be supported by tho weight o! evidence. In his very frank biography of Kixg Edward, Sir Sidney Lee states that when in 1890 tho Emperor dismissed Bismarck from his service and he became politically his own master, the outer world came to attribitc to imclc and nephew a personal and political rivalry which hampered the good relations of the two peoples. '.Ehis allegation was without foundation in fact. On occasion the kinsmen caused each other irritntion, but there was no real estrangement ... No deliberate and systematic hostility to tho tiermall iicopl'o could be truthfully put to tho King's credit. Mis personal feelings wore y.?it superficially affected by tho mutual jealousy, which, from rouses fur beyond his control, grew during his reign between the two nations.

While Sir Sidney Lee lays stress on the negative side of Kiso Edward's influence on foreign policy, Heiir Ai.fked H. Fried, in a book just published entitled The German Emperor find the Peace of Hie World, contends that the lato-King made positive effort* to brine about a more friendly

understanding between Britain and Germany. One of these efforts was made during his visit to Kiel in 1901, which resulted in the Anglo-German arbitration treaty. At the moment, says Herb Fiued, more was planned. In order to demonstrate to the Kaiser that the Anglo-French agreement of April, 1904, was not directed against Germany efforts wero made to arrive at a close agreement between Germany, Great Britain, and France. In an obituary notice of Kino Edward, published in the Berliner Tagcblatt, Baron d'Estour-' nelles, who waa invited to Kiel duiing Kino Edward's visit and was received on a number of occasions by the Emperor, confirmed the views that had been entertained as to the significance of those days at Kiel. He described how he was encouraged by the English monarch when he advocated a Franco-German understanding. "It must be admitted," says Herr Fried, "that this understanding came to nothing at the time, but the event in -question must have played an important part in shaping the conversations of tho Emperor." Whatever may bo the real facts regarding the late King's attitude towards Germany, there is a strong and growing feeling in influential quarters both in Britain and Germany that the present state of suspicion and mistrust must come to an end. The two nations have so much in common, and are learning so much from each other in politics, industry, commerce, science, philosophy, theologv, and general literature, that it should not be a difficult matter to overcome those unworthy suspicions and jealousies, which have in some cases been deliberately manufactured and fomented by people actuated by interested motives. A war between these two great'kindred nations would bo a blow to civilisation. This fact is being more and more clearly recognised by influential elements in both countries, and the continual repetition of the assertion that a war is inevitables being met by protests of increasing emphasis. It may be that if the oit-predicted conflict can be postponed for a few more years it will never come. It is, of course, one of our first and most important duties to make our defence so strong that no other Power will dare to attack us; but it is equally our duty to express the sternest disapproval of reckless challenges, bitter words, and needlessly provocative conduct, always remembering that it is unworthy of a great nation to allow itself to be the plaything of the jingo and the panicmonger.