Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 17 June 1915, Page 21

Current Topics

Gladstone's Grandson - Gladstone's grandson, Mr. W. G. C. Gladstone, M.P., was killed on the battlefield in Flanders in the middle of April, when acting as a lieutenant in the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Young Gladstone, who, by the way, was an enthusiastic and valued supporter of the Irish Nationalist cause, possessed an attractive personality, and gave promise of a very successful political career. His early and tragic cutting off naturally suggested comparison and contrast with the long years of service of his illustrious ancestor; and the subject has received feeling and adequate treatment from the London press. The following lines, entitled ' From Generation to Generation,' appeared in the Times: ' One gave long years with heart and brain, One, youth's brief fiery blow For freedom : whence the greater gain Only the high gods know.'

Still more happy and apropos is the comment of the Westminster Gazette. ' What better epitaph,’ this paper finely asks, ‘could there be for the grandson of Mr. Gladstone than the noble-words which his illustrious ancestor used about the cause to which this country has now pledged its honor and the lives of its soldiers: ‘‘We felt called upon to enlist ourselves on the part of the British nation as advocates and as champions of the integrity and independence of Belgium. And if we had gone to war we should have gone to war for freedom, we should have gone to war for public right, we should have gone to war to save human happiness from being invaded by tyrannous and lawless power. That is what I call a good cause, gentlemen. And though I detest war, and there are no epithets too strong, if you could supply me with them, that I will not endeavor to heap upon its head, in such a war as that, while the breath of my body is continued to me, I am ready to engage. lam ready to support it, lam ready to give all the help and aid I can to those who carry this country into it.” “I am ready,” says the grandson thirty-five years later, “to give my life.” ’

The Desire for Peace Every sane and humane mortal on this planet must earnestly desire peace: but the fact has quietly and seriously to be faced that a merely make-shift and patched-up peace, without a decisive issue to the struggle, would be worse than useless, and would, in point of fact, be a very grave calamity. It would mean that the colossal sacrifices made by all the belligerents had been made in vain, and that the weary round of bloodshed and violence, of destruction and rapine, would be begun again at the earliest possible opportunity. All i he competent observers of the. war situation, and of the whole trend and scope of German policy and aspirations, are in absolute agreement on this point. It has been admirably stated and stressed in a recent illuminating article by Mr. Ililaire Belloc. Writing in Land and Water, Mr. Belloc takes stock in a masterly way of the present mood of Germany, and declares that the directing minds of that country know that victory in the original sense is quite impossible, but that the German people do not know it, and that Germany is now working for a draw, with the unmistakable purpose of renewing operations as soon as the necessary further preparation has been made. 'One thing is certain,' coneludes Mr. Belloc, and his words should be heeded, 'if he (Germany) gets his inconclusive peace, then, without doubt, it will be but a truce so far as this country is concerned. And whatever a settlement might do for the satisfaction of the Continent, it would leave the German Empire at least'determined and able to pursue, at no very distant date, its task of undermining the supremacy of Great Britain at sea and the whole international position of these islands.' .;

.The same .great factthat war between the Triple Entente and Germany ipust • necessarily be; a - fight to a finish, and -thatlan inconclusive peace would be futile, and, to Britain at least, probably fatal—was perceived by General von Bernhardi long before the war commenced, and on. this point his vision was clear and sure and true. In his. Germany -and the -Next or, published in 1911, this exponent of German aims and anticipations writes : ‘ Such a warfor us more than for any other nation—must be a war for our political and national existence. This must be so, for our opponents can only attain their political aims by almost annihilating us by land and by sea. If the victory is only half won, they mould have to expect continuous renewals of the contest, which would be contrary to their interests. They know that well enough, and therefore avoid the contest, since we shall certainly defend ourselves with the utmost bitterness and obstinacy. If, notwithstanding, circumstances make the war inevitable, then the intention of our enemies to crush us to the ground, and our own resolve to maintain our position victoriously, will make it a war of desperation. A war fought and lost under such circumstances would destroy our laboriously gained political importance, would jeopardise the whole future of our nation, would throw us back for centuries, would shake the influence of German thought in the civilised world, and thus check the general progress of mankind in its healthy development, for which a flourishing Germany is the essential condition. Our next war will be fought for the -highest interests of our country and of mankind. This will invest it with importance in the world’s history. “World power or downfall!” will be our rallying cry. Keeping this before us, we must prepare for war with the confident intention of conquering, and with the iron resolve to persevere to the end, come what may.’ In other words, an indecisive peace means that hell will be again let loose upon the world—and if possible an even worse hell than before—as soon as ever Germany can get her diabolical machinery in working order again ; and they are the real friends of peace and of humanity who desire such a termination to the present struggle as shall render such a calamity impossible. As the French Premier aptly said, in reference to the sacrifices now being made by France and her Allies, ‘it is no precarious peace that can spring from these hecatombs.’

The Irish- American Press There is, it is generally known, some difference of opinion amongst American Irishmen in regard to the policy of the Irish National Party in relation to the war; and it is not easy for an outsider accurately to gauge —or at all events to be sure that he is accurately gauging—whether the pro or anti-Redmond view preponderates. His difficulty arises from the fact, first, that he can only estimate Irish-American opinion as it is reflected in the Irish-American press secondly, that he sees only a very small section, of that press; and thirdly, that he has no means of knowing whether the papers which come under his notice are really those which carry weight in the Republic. He is therefore gla*d and thankful to get a lead from those on the spot who are entitled to speak with authority on the subject. In this latter category must certainly be placed that widely known and exceptionally high-class magazine, the Ave Maria. The Are Maria has never taken an extreme or partisan view on the subject of the war—it is one of the few of our American exchanges that has made some approach to being really neutral and really fair in its attitude. It is, therefore, entitled to be listened to with extreme respect when it makes a definite and decisive pronouncement in regard to the prevailing or at any rate dominant view in Irish-American circles in respect to Mr. Redmond's war policy. Such a declaration we have in the April issue just to hand, and it will be read with general and genuine interest by the Irish people in this part of the world. - g * In a -book recently published in America there appears, under the caption The Irish-American Press,'

the following statement: ‘ All of the leading and influential papers in America are now against Redmond.’ Commenting on this statement, our contemporary remarks : ‘As we happen to see from week to week the great majority, if not all, the papers in question, we are in a position to characterise the statement as wildly extravagant. In the first place, among the ten journals named by the author of the book as bearing put his assertion, there are several that have no real claim to be called either “influential” or “leading” and, in the second, ten is a rather small percentage of the papers usually called Irish-American. The Chicago Citizen, whose “Irishism” and Americanism are both above suspicion, more truly than the author quoted, represents, we feel certain, the great mass of intelligent, thoughtful, and judicious Irish-Americans—or, better perhaps, Americans of Irish birth or extraction.’ Our contemporary then quotes from the Chicago paper as follows: ‘ To us it is not only wicked and absurd but unpatriotic and treasonous to put any consideration, or any animosity, above and before love of Ireland. It will, of course, be understood that duty to the Stars and Stripes is paramount; but, after this, devotion to the old land is the feeling that possesses us. For it we are willing to forget for the time being. For it we have resolved to give our support to the National party. Our friends who differ from us —and we are speaking of those who are honest, as many are—take another view of the matter. With them hatred of England is first. To this the welfare of Ireland must be subordinated. Let the dear old land —-yea, even suffer a great deal—if England can only be made to suffer a little. Ireland is - not only asked to sacrifice all prospect of Home Rule, but to degrade and disgrace her tried leaders, that revenge upon England may be had. The things for which we labored and hoped for over a century must all be immolated to the Moloch of vindictiveness.’ The Ave Maria then gives the following cordial and hearty and valued endorsement of the Chicago Citizen's sentiments: ‘Mr Redmond and his colaborerts in Ireland may rest assured that the noisiest portion of the Irish-American press is far from being as “leading and influential” as it likes to believe itself. And they may further rely with perfect confidence on the wholehearted sympathy with which their policy and action, in this most critical period of Irish history, are viewed by the really influential Irish-American press and by the vast majority of its readers.’

An After-the-War Surprise Germany is always threatening us with surprises, and hinting darkly at the unexpected and unimagined things that are still in reserve for her enemies. It may be admitted that in one or two instances these threats have duly materialised. There has been the mammoth siege gun, and there has been the cruel and deadly gas. So far as the former is concerned, there is reason to believe that a substantial limit, if not an actual check, to its usefulness has been devised. According to one of our local war correspondents—Mr. A. Spence, of the Dunedin Evening Star who has unquestionably shown himself exceptionally well-informed in regard to matters connected with the great struggle, the gun plots or artillery gardens made use of by General J off re at Verdun, have thus far been eminently successful in keeping the huge howitzer at a distance. In regard to the gas, owing to the variability of the winds it can hardly become a constant or reliable factor' in military operations ; and in any case it can be met, and apparently is to be met, by reprisals in kind. That is a horrible thought : but it is just possible that if the Germans once get a fair taste of their own medicine it may end in both sides dropping the inhuman business. * The latest surprise which is promised us is a phenomenal revival of German trade and industry immediately after the war, to an extent and with a rapidity that the rest of the world at present does not dream of. It is described at length and in the most glowing terms , by a German writer, Frank Koester, in the New York

Tribune . ‘ The post-bellum surprise of the world,’ he writes, ‘ is going to be the rapid recuperation of Germany. Scarcely will the last echoes of the field guns have died away when a revival of industry will begin which will be unparalleled in history. The whole world will be bare of German products and tired of substitutes and makeshifts. Particularly in her chemical industries she will again supply the world, and - enable, for example, the million American workmen now out of work through lack of materials of manufacture of which Germany has the monopoly to resume their occupation, and thus assist in the restoration of prosperity in this country. All Germany herself will be stripped of surstocks of all sorts of manufacture, exhausted by ordinary wear and consumption during the war when her workers were away. To meet these demands and to replenish her shelves will require a degree of activity never before seen. Her markets throughout the world will be hers again without question, for the competition which, like a blizzard, swoops down on the stricken rival will retreat before the coming again of the German eagles of trade. Germany’s recuperation thus will not be the painful and parched process of the South, but a startling quickening and an unexampled stimulation of industry, and the various agencies which have contributed to her commercial, industrial, and technical preeminence in the past will be vastly more active in the future. Indeed, Germany at peace will prove a far more formidable rival (to America) than Germany at war,

* Exactly how this is to be brought about, and why no other of the belligerents can possibly hope to accomplish anything of the kind, is quite simply explained. It is German ' kultur ' that makes all the difference. " The elements of recuperation which will enable Germany to take her place again in the lead of the world's commerce and industry will not, however, be possessed by the nations with which she is at war, so that their recuperation after the war will not be by any means as rapid. The reason for this lies in the nature of the organisation of the German Government, which is undoubtedly the most successful and satisfactory governmental system that has ever been organised. It is largely to the wonderful efficacy of the system that Germany owes her position to-day, and it will be to that efficacy that she will owe the rapid recuperation which she will enjoy and which is destined to surprise the world. The German governmental system differs from all other systems in that it is a directive rather than merely a corrective element in the lives of its citizens: that is to say, the Government is in effect the partner of every citizen, a willing, a welcome, and an able aid in the factory, field and counting house rather than, as are most Governments, merely an officer on fixed posts a block away. Much is heard of Prussian militarism these days, but militarism is only one phase of the German system, the principle of the co-operation of every elemeut of the nation with every other element. German industries, agriculture, commerce, banking and education are just as well organised as is her military, and it is this extensive organisation, the principle of "Einer fur Allc, Alle fur Einen" (one for all, all for one), which is in reality the much misunderstood and vindictively criticised German kultur.' This instantaneous and unprecedented development of German trade is to take effect, be it remembered, whether Germany wins or loses. One must at least admire the thorough-going optimism of this sanguine Teuton.

The Pope's Neutrality It is a great tribute to the real and commanding influence of the Pope that both sides in the present world struggle are -anxious to secure his adhesion to their cause ; and this although they must know that as the spiritual father of Christendom, with thousands of his spiritual children in every 1 * one of the warring camps, it is altogether out of the question, and not even remotely possible, that he should really take up the role of partisan; Apparently on the off chance that if they

only try hard enough and, long enough the besiegers will at last succeed, the most persistent attempts have been and are being mSTde by the Powers most immediately interested to induce the Holy Father to commit himself to some departure from his obviously proper course of strict neutrality. Germany appears to be making its appeal chiefly to material considerations. The diplomats and agents of Germany and Austria have explained to his Holiness that the cause of Prance is the cause of Freemasonry, anti-clericalism, and irreligion; and they are alleged to have promised him immense concessions to “Catholicism in their respective countries, even to the extent of hinting that if he sided with them they would give him back the temporal power and make him the arbiter of the world in settling the affairs of nations. France has tried, much more subtly, to gain her end by invoking the moral argument. What looks to us like a particularly clever and ingenious attempt in that direction is reported in a despatch from Paris, under date April 30, which is published in American Catholic papers just to hand. *

According to this despatch, French and Belgian Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops have united in an appeal to Pope Benedict to draw up and issue a complete and comprehensive statement of the principles of international morality from the Christian standpoint, and as they are binding on the Christian conscience. The memorandum of appeal is said to have been signed by Cardinal Mercier, Archbishop of Malines, Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, and other members of the Sacred College. It urges that the statement asked for, issued at the present psychological moment, would be epoch-making in the history of the Papacy and points out that such an opportunity may never occur again for the Church to show that it. stands above political considerations, caring only for the moral and religious interests of its people. It is recalled that even in the Vatican council of 1870 a petition signed by forty bishops was presented demanding that the Church promulgate Christian principles to regulate war and the rights of nations. Other attempts having the same object were made even before that date. In 1868 Cardinal Coulli accepted the patronage of the union for the study of rights of nations according to Christian principles. Among those who joined in the movement were Cardinals Rampolla, Mercier, Bourne, Amette, Maffi, and Vaszari. *

The memorandum, as reported, proceeds; ‘Now is the moment to put into practice the result of those studies, as Catholics and even a certain number of Protestants look to the Pope as the neutral defender of Christian morality, demanding guidance in matters so connected with modern civilisation which are the outcome of Christian teaching. The Pontiff as the supreme pastor of Catholics throughout the world has the right to lay down moral principles which should govern all Christian nations in their reciprocal relations. The earliest theologians condemned war altogether, but later,chiefly through the influence of St. Augustine, war sometimes was considered inevitable. St. Thomas and other authorities teach that war always is unlawful unless it is just, which justice can exist only through a just cause and a right intention. In justice it is no more morally right for a nation than for an individual and its perpetrator is condemned by all Christian principles. Theologians denounce as pagan error the assertion that “might is right,” or that the right to wage war depends on force of arms. It is worse still when a stronger country fights from a desire foxconquest or demands a great indemnity. This, after the killing, of thousands, is called by St. Augustine “brigandage,” necessitating a league of honest, peaceloving nations. Christian theologians call such wars theft, and say that the injustice which war seeks to redress must be certain and evident. "War is morally wrong when in vindication of probable or doubtful rights.’ After citing authorities who condemn the unnecessary destruction of life and property recommending love even between enemies and ordering that non-combatants be spared, the memorandum closes with

this statement : ‘ International laws and conventions are expressions of legitimate consideration. The Hague Convention of 1907 gives expression to moral principles binding on the conscience of all Christians.’

The whole thing is very plausibly and cleverly conceived ; but wo are tolerably safe in asserting that no such document was signed or sent by the distinguished prelates named. It is much more like/ 1 the work of some interested and ingenious press agent, bent on furnishing the credulous public with the sort of ‘ copy ’ which he knows' they are hankering after. The message is described as ‘ unconfirmed ’; and in the form in which it has been given, we should be very much surprised if it ever is confirmed.