To the Editor

New Zealand Tablet, 6 October 1921, Page 11

To the Editor

Sir,Taking up a recent number of the School Journal from one of my children I was forcibly reminded of a late definition of \the word "propaganda" as "his." The number in question - contained the following silly untruths t. "At one time the most of it [America] belonged to Great Britain but some of the Kings of England who were German treated the people so badly that they rose up against the British and set up a nation of their own." I pass over the amazing statement that most of America belonged,to Great Britain. (By the way the term Great Britain does not include Ireland whatever writers [in the Journal may think. They possibly do not know the official title of the United Kingdom" The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.") I come to the nationality of the Kings. If George 111. was a German is not George IV. one also? Both had German grandfathers. Our present , King makes no protestation of nationality, but George 111. "gloried in the name of Briton." The School Journal is really too hard en poor George 111. That King was always pig-headed and often mad, but to state that he was responsible for the American War and to insinuate that the English people were guiltless, is not playing the game. The King was not an absolute monarch; he governed by a parliament elected by the English people. If the people did not favor the war it could not s be carried on. It is true that Chatham opposed the war, but the main opposition in parliament came from Burke, Barre, Connolly, and Sheridanall Irishmen. Lord Chatham said: "Ireland to a man is in favor of the Americans." The Irish then were not responsible.

The endeavor to place the responsibility for the Revolutionary War on poor mad George 111. dates from recent times, when England felt the need of an understanding (or something stronger)' with America. It is the people must shoulder the responsibility under a constitutional government. But were the English people opposed to the war as poet-propagandists, historian-propagandists, and ' newspaper-propagandists would now lead us to believe? The English people were the real guilty party. Spencer

(History of United States) says: "In England there was a .general sentiment in favor of compelling the colonies to

submission,” and Taylor, another historian; says: “There was not an English'peasant who did not regard the colonists as rebels against himself.” The Pennsylvania Gdzette of March 4, 1774, published a, letter from Loudon containing the following “There is no more obnoxious character here at present than that of a friend of America.” When/ Franklih appeared before the English Privy Council ip--1774 he was treated as if he had been a common criminal. The Solicitor-General’s /speech was filled , with scurrility ' and personal abuse and | was thoroughly enjoyed by the 35 gentlemen (P) who came to enjoy'the proceedings, ’ just if it-were a bull-baiting ‘ and forgetful or careless of the| fact that he represented* a rising people as ambassador,;: whose person should be sacred. Stories about the “old mad* King” and the “Hessians” won’t do ’amongst educated people. — am, etc., . # > C*. . ■ .••^^.X..V: < O. O’Laoghaire.