The Hokitika Guardian FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1922. EDWARD THE PEACEMAKER.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 December 1922, Page 2

The Hokitika Guardian FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1922. EDWARD THE PEACEMAKER.

A reviewer says that tlio title of “England under Edward V 11.,” to a recent work by Mr J. A. Fnrrer, is a little misleading. It suggests a general survey of England during tills reign, perhaps with special reference to a social and political development. Actually it is concerned exclusively with the foreign policy of Britain during this period, and with the part played in it by the King. It is known that Edward VII, exercised a considerable personal influence in foreign affairs, and it is generally thought that to his good offices was largely due the peace which Western Europe enjoyed

while he lived, and continued to enjoy for some years after his death. The ' ex-Crown Prince of Germany, for example, in his recently published memoirs has declared his conviction that if Edward had been alive in 1914, war would have been avoided. Rut Mr Farrer does not subscribe to this view. “Like the other monarchs of his day, King Edward undoubtedly desired the peace of the world, acquiring justly tho honournbl efitle of ‘Peacemaker’. . . But lie will rank in history rather as a Peace-wisher than a Peace-maker, in accordance with tho common lot of humanity to wish for one thing and to achieve its opposite.” Mr Farrer does not deny him all credit, Ho regards the reconciliation of IJritain with ,

France and Russia, which was to ,i great extent the result of Edward’s eil'orL. its two assets of incalculable r:.W ! . But he considers the “encrclement of Germany and the entail .lement of Britain in France’s bore .lit ivy feud with Germany to have been fat'd errors. In dealing with the origin of the great war, which he. holds to have been the inevitable result of this policy of encircling Germany, Mr Farrer endeavours t! be scrupulously impartial. Indeed) in bis desire to be lair to Germany lie exposes himself to the criticism that he is a little unfair tH other nations. He quotes voluminously from German apologias, and accepts unquestioningly statements mini German sources, whose accuracy his readers will be inclined to challenge. Again be is inclined to attach undue importance to provocative and inflammatory utterances, when they emanate from the English Press or from English politicians, but to dismiss them as trivial and unrepresentative when the authorship is German. When, for instance, the ex-Kaiser rattles his sabre in a characteristic speech, we are told that it had a needlessly disconcerting effect upon the. world.” When, on the other hand, an Englishman talks in n far less indiscreet strain he is denounced for trailing his coat before Germany, inviting a conflict, and convincing Germany that England is her pre-destined enemy. Jingoism was not the monopoly iff either nation, but all the evidence goes to show that it was more prevalent in Germany than in Britain. And if Englishmen are told that they should take no notice of the toasts to “The Day” and the lucubrations of the Bernhardi school, it is only reasonable that the German should treat improbable ‘‘invasion stories’ in obscure periodicals in the similarfashion. •