PATRIOTISM OF NEW ZEALAND.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 355, 4 March 1902, Page 4

PATRIOTISM OF NEW ZEALAND.

BRITISH ALiil It A TlO X. GERMAN' SLANDERS “MALE IN ENGLAND.” London, Jan. 2D. Onto more New Zealand Inis the honor of creating a profound sensation, not merely in Britain, but throughout Europe. And the incident lias come at the happiest possible moment, when its effect would be the most pronounced. Last Saturday the chief London daily papers published a Reuter message of three quarter-column length, giving a fairly full report of the monster meeting held in Wellington on the previous evening, .January 17th, to protest against tue “foreign slanders upon the British policy in South Africa.” The speeches of Mr Luthie, Mr Bruce, Mr Seddon, and Sir Robert Stout —I mention them in their order of sequence—were given at some length, Mr Soddon receiving about a third of a column as his share. Reference was made in the leading columns of several journals to the meeting and the speeches, the comments being invariably laudatory and in some cases quite enthusiastic.

So far as my memory goes, it is quite without precedent for a New Zealand meeting or Now Zealand speakers to receive such prominence in the Mother Country, and the colony has obtained an advertisement such as it never enjoyed before. The New Zealand meeting was the talk of the day in London and the provinces, and received pointed attention abroad on several succeeding days. It was, in fact, a grand coup, especially followed, us it was, hv the account of the women’s meeting and Sir Joseph Ward's speech. Altogether it was a “ big score ” for New Zealand, and has forcibly accentuated the sentiment of hearty admiration which had been inspired by the

colony’s offer of an Eighth Contingent for the front.

Now Zealand’s denunciation of the atrocious German calumnies has appealed

straight to the heart of the people of this country, as will readily be understood from what I sent out last week as to the latest d ivelopinents of the affair. Indignation here is as keen as in New Zealand, but it is somewhat qualified by contempt for tho besotted ignorance alike of history and of tendencies which could either originate or accept such manifest lies as if they were truth. There is also a prevalent feeling of amazement among the bettor-informed class in the country that Count von Bulcw should have been so curiously inept and tactless in tho Reichstag references to the matter. But there is a graver side lo the matter, and some disappointment is loft here that tho speakers at tho Wellington meeting do not seem to have touched upon it. That is the deplorable fact that “ the German slanders were made in Britain, and wore supplied by British subjects ” to foreign nations for use against this country. The titular Leader of the British Liberal party, Sir Henry CampbellBannerman, deliberately charged the British Government and army with employing ■ “ methods of barbarism.” Mr Lloyd George, Dr. Clark, and other public men have aided in the vile work. That mischievous woman, Miss Ilobbouse —no doubt with tho “ best intentions ’’—did further harm, and, us for tho notorious W. T. Stead, he, with his inflammatory pamphlet, " Hell Let Looso,” and in other ways furnished more than enough material for the infamous campaign of slander and libel carried on by Dr. Loyds and his Continental friends and hirelings.

This does not in the smallest degree excuse those who have credulously or carelessly swallowed ami reproduced the shameful calumnies spread by the British pro-Boers against their own country and countrymen. But it does surely suggest that a time has come to put down .these home-made calumnies with a stern and strong hand. Why did none of the New Zealand speakers take up this point ? ft is the one difficulty in our case that our foreign foes can and do constantly jeer at us for our anger at their slanders, while those are based upon the spoken and written utterances of some of our own leading public men ! “ What right have you to lie angry with us ?" asked one German Anglophobe, “ for merely repeating what t lie leader of your Liberal party himself said ? Why do you not call him to account if his statement, is untrue before complaining of us for accepting the words of an "cx-Mblister of the Crown as entitled to credence ?” How can we answer this retort without confessing culpable ' weakness of toleration '! Why should British subjects be allowed to assist and encourage their country’s enemies in this way during a war. It seems an astonishing weakness on our part to tolerate in our midst such treachery and disloyalty and treason as is poured forth wholesale by pro-Boer speakers, some of them .men highly placed. Do not forget in New Zealand in your righteousness and noble indignation at, German, French, and Dutch slanders that these have originated with unworthy fellow-countrymen of your own in the Motherland. And then say how such traitors should be treated ! I deeply regret that there was not some very plain speaking from New Zealand op this head. A Comffy M.P. writes : “ An officer commanding at tlie front writes tome as follows 1 December 17.—1 captured a captain, Zunnisen, who told me his commando had all read Mr Bannerman 's speeches, and they had the most encouraging effect ; he wondered why we allowed it.’ At home Mr

Birrell (Chairman, Publication Committee, N.L.F.), and Mr Stead compose—the former a pastoral to the faithful (no doubt caoled to the Transvaal) that a temple of peace is potraised on a ‘ liclacomb of slaughtered babes the latter a communication to the New York Journal : ‘ The fate of Boer women, a shock to all Europe ; victims of awful brutes in Khaki while the ,Spenser remarks : l lf De Wet caught his lordship he would be justified in giving him a good flogging and pistolling him.,' and that 1 the army would rejoice at such an act.’ Can we wonder that such 1 foul and filthy lies ’ and hysterical gush have their intended effect at Berlin, or that the Cologne Gazette remarks : 1 The foreigner must not lie blamed for believing the words of the former War Minister, Sir 11. Campbell-Bannerman, who branded British warfare as barbarism ?’ But we, sir, who have sons in the lighting line will never forget, and may even repay, these patriots who, from their arm-chairs at home, support (lie enemy and protract the war.”

Yes, that is the true position, and it is disgraceful that- it is tolerated or that it has existed iti such a country as Knglaud. Mr 0. L. Molcsworlh, writing to a leading newspaper with reference to the Anglo-German friction " If ft upland would put a tariff on that influx of cheap and worthless rubbish with which Germany deluges Kngland not only would the cost of the war he paid by Germany, but the income tax might be reduced, and our own manufacturers greatly benefited. But this is not all. German goods enter all our colonies and dependencies on equal terms with Knglish goods. Germans use ail our colonies as freely, or even more freely, than their own. They enjoy greater privileges, because they do hot contribute to the Home expenses of government, or to the army ami navy, which are necessary to protect them. Whv should they enjoy more favorable terms than those enjoyed by our loyal subjects Why should they not be taxed 7 We have commercial treaties with Germany which Lord Salisbury admits ought never to have been entered upon ; the earliest opportunity should be taken lo gel rid of them They form a most unjust fetter to our trade. The tariff upon rubbish shot upon us from Germany ought to have been imposed long ago, and it would have been done had it not been fqr our slavish idolatorv of that fetish of our fiscal policy misnamed ‘ free trade ’ —which is in reality 1 fettered trade ’—which is daily getting more and more discredited in business circles, but which few have the moral courage to denounce.” “ One can form some idea of the

strength of the patriotic enthusiasm now pervading New Zealand," says a London paper. “ when on the same platform with Mr Seddon at the great Wellington demonstration were seen his embittered and implacable political enemy, Mr Dulhie, and his former zealous and disappointed lival. Sir R. Stout —\ .Z. Herald.