Untitled

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2609, 1 August 1881, Page 2

During late years the foreign policy of England has been a series of mistakes. The whole blame does not rest upon any particular Government. The small wars which the country so rashly entered upon have entailed a large loss of men and money without securing any substantial advantage. The Afghan and Transvaal troubles were directly traceable to the policy of the Beaconsfield Government. Their inglorious ending was as directly attributable to the peace at any price policy of Mr Gladstone. However much the bulk of the British taxpayers may bo opposed to petty wars of the character referred to, the general opinion is that once they arc entered upon there should be no drawing back till the nation is in a position to dictate its own terras, and so cripple or bind down tbe enemy that recourse again to arms would be a remote contingency. Tbis purpose has not been accomplished either in the Transvaal or in Afghanistan. We were led to tbe above remarks

by an able paper by Sir Samuel Baker, on the “ Raids and Forays of Great Britain.” He contrasts the military policy of England in the old times with that pursued in the present day, and says : The old wars of England resulted in conquests. The colonies are monuments of British victories; the inhabitants of strange and distant lands acknowledge our superiority, and the world admitted the ability of England as representing the dominant power of the Anglo-Saxon race in the rough path of civilisation. The conquered races submitted to our sway, confident in a rule which ensured protection, justice, religious liberty, and the freedom of British subjects. The march of a British army was regarded as the planting of the British standard, which offered an asylum to all friends and a safeguard from all enemies—for ever. This inspired courage in the weak-hearted, and confidence in our allies. The prestige of Great Britain was gained and was supported by her omnipresence, by her advance without retreat. ‘ A change came over the spirit of the ’ country. Since the close of the Crimean war our«.military policy has been exhibited in a long and unsatisfactory series of razzias under the misnomer of wars, which entail an unlimited expenditure, a constant recurrence and barren results.

Sir Samuel Baker protests against the late wars, as they were not sanctioned by the nation as a whole, but by a party in the House of Commons. Everyone will agree with him that hostilities should not be rashly initiated. It appears that the recent wars of England have been entered upon without any defined plan of operations. This is the list given by Sir Samuel Baker of the wars without an object which have taken place during the past fifteen years :

186(5. —At a cost of nine millions sterling we matched 400 miles to Mngdala, in the heart of Abyssinia—and then marched back again. 1874. —We invaded Ashantec,and burned Goomassie—and then marched back again, The operations w«re well conducted and successful. 1879.—1 n Zululand we were beaten at the commencement, but eventually succeeded in destroying many villages and cattle-kraals; we were victorious at Ulnndi ; and t'en marched back again. In 1880, after many vicissitudes and great sacrifice of life, we occupied Cabul, and were victorious before Candahar, at a cost of seventeen or eighteen millions. We have evacuated Cabul : we are to relinquish Candahar—and then ‘ march back again 1’

The writer also strongly condemns the war with the Boers, as a foray that “ can bring no honor to our arms, in spite of heroic acts and a great sacrifice of life.” The above was written some days before the disaster to the forces under Sir George Colley, and so far the prediction has been fully realised. But although the invasion of the Transvaal was a most unwise step,as Sir Samuel Baker says, an extension of territory is better than a retreat, especially when that retreat is preceded by disaster to our arms. He says :

An advance followed by a precipitate retreat can only be understood by an enemy as a confession of weakness. Wars conducted upon such a principle lose their respectability, and dwindle into the category of ra/.zias or forays, with disastrous political results. Wo forfeit the respect of our savage enemies by the adoption of their border tactics. Instead of lighting for a principle, and carrying out a well-defined line of policy tluu would support and encourage those tribes who have befriended us, we turn up our backs on both friends and foes at the termination of a war. leaving our quandem allies to the tender regard of our late enemies, and involving the entire country in hopeless anarchy. How can we expect the goodwill or alliance of tribes which have been thus treated I Can we hope for a permanent settlement of the difficulties which have necessitated an appeal to arms if we persist in a world-known policy of evacuation and retreat .’ Such a policy will render us a laughing-stock to our enemies, and will encourage them to a renewal of hostilities at convenient intervals. England has already more possessions than her Colonial Government can control; and she will continue to rule them only so long as her prestige shall remain unblemished, but her glory will vanish at the sound of retreat.

The above are the words of a man of singular ability, and who has had large experience in almost every quarter of the world. They should be taken to heart by every patriotic subject of Her Majesty. Owing to the disastrous wars of late, England’s influence has sadly declined,and the honor of her arras has been tarnished.