South Africa and Ireland

Press, Volume L, Issue 14918, 17 March 1914, Page 6

South Africa and Ireland

The very emphatic- speech by Mr ! Churchill on the Irish crisis lends additional interest to an article in the latest "Spectator" to hand, in which a comparison is drawn between General j Botha'- roup in .South Africa and act, v, hich ;ho British Parliament nia.v have to commit if they decide to coerce Ulster. The ■"Spectator" is not discussing the rights and wrongs oi' the deportations. It point*, out that, the South African Union having been given full rights of _,olf-govornnoiit, there i.> no power in England to challenge any such action by the South Atrican Government. Genera! Botha felt obliged to adopt extra-legal methods, ami knew that he had the support ot the Legislature of tho Union —in other words tho support of tlio people —in doing so, such support ultimately making his action legal. The "Spectator" tiien proceeds to state what it is sure will happen should the Government decide to force Homo Rule on Ulster without bloodshed. The Government wiil be obliged to commit technically illegal aet_, to proclaim martial law, arrest, imprison, and deport, •'thinking nothing of uio legal posi- " tion, but only ot how to make their " w ill dominant and their authority " respected." Having seized and deported the Ulster leaders and broken up the Uhtcr military organisation, the Government muse, as General Botha did, go to Parliament and ask for an Act of Indemnity, legalising the steps they took to enforce the Home Rule Act and save tho country from civil war. But the Government, so the "Spectator" holds, would not get an Act of Indemnity. General Botha had the Legislature and the country behind him, and knew he had this support when ho banished the leaders. The British Government have a majority in only one House, and it takes two Houses to pass an Indemnity Act. To invoke the aid of the Parliament Act, with its two years' dclayj would be useless. An appeal to" tho country would bo risky in the extreme; if tho Government weredefeateo, the members would bo personally responsible for the Government's acts in Ulster. In the meantime, of course, all the servants of the Government who had carried out their policy would bo liable to bo proceeded against for illegal acts. Yet, if Mr Churchill's words aro to be taken seriously, this is precisely the danger in which the Government may land themselves before long. Another point worthy of serious consideration raised by the "Spectator" is the significance, with respect to Ireland's government under Home Rule, of tho recent readiness of English Radicals and Laoour men to demand interference in the government of South Africa. Here wo havo a State that admittedly has full powers of local government, powers which, by tho way, Radicals and Labour men wore particularly anxious should bo given to the conquered South African States. In spite of this, it has been urged that the Sovereign should veto tho Indemnity Bill, and the matter has been raised in the House of Commons. If this is done in tho case of South Africa, what chance is there, asks tho "Spectator," "of our avoiding dis- " putable Irish Acts being considered " under the theoretical reserve powers "of the Imperial Legislature?" And if Irish Acts are to be discussed in the House of Commons, whero is the advantage of getting rid of Irish affairs? It is quite certain that the very politicians in England who now clamour for Homo Rule would be tno first to mako the House of Commons once more an arena for Irish politics if they disapproved of Acts of the Irish Government or lesislation of the Irish Legislature

We have never been able to spare much sympathy for thoso peculiar people who regard the reigning Royal Family as usurpers, and acknowledge as their rightful ruler a member of a minor European house, descended from the Stuarts. But there L. something interesting nnd pathetic in the "Daily Mail's" little sketch of a man standing in the thick moving traffic in Whitehall, on the anniversary of th_ death of Charles 1..

and trying to identify the window from which the King passed out to his execution—to die for his people, as this lonciv adherent put it. "Who nowadays would die for the White Rose?" ho asked a passer-by. "It may be treason, but I will say it—'' ''Say what.-" said'the rather alarmed passerby. "Long live King Charles! The White Rose for ever!" replied the other in a quiet voice. "Now let them arrest mc." But none arrested him. As a matter of fact no one elsehoard him, and if a dozen policemen had heard him. they would have iaken no notice. The busy wotid of London moved by him, leaving him alone in his passion for a lost cause. But he was probably a happier man than many of those wl»o passed him by, for it is better to cling to a lost cause than to have no cause at all.

When English people say that the Germans cannot colonise, they often forget to inako allowance for the fact that Germany formed colonial amhitions after the portions of the. world best -suited for colonies of white people had been occupied by other Powers. And in the colonies that she has managed to secure Germany is not doing

co badly as some people suppose. Take German East Africa, the activity of German _ettlers in which is mentioned in our cable pews to-day. The white population in 1912 numbered 4866. There are a great many more white people in German East Africa than there aro in the older, from the colonisation point of view. Northern Territory of Australia, and more than there are in British East Africa. Planters and farmers in the German territory numbered 758, mechanics 327, "handicraftsmen and navvies" 129, and Government officials 436. Unfortunately the information we have docs not give the proportion of Germans amorist the settlers. The extension of the railway towards Lake Tanganyika is part of a general policy of development in German colonic-. 'Tho watchword cf the German African colonies has now become 'railways.' " says an authority on the subject, the Imperial and local authorities having realised that though lines may not give an immediate return, they "lead in tho end to astonishing result/, hoth fnm the financial and civilising point of view."

Tlio growing inclination of the "Liberal" M.P.'s to take our readers into their confidence by writing letters for publication in "The Press" is wholly admirable, and will not be discoureg.vl by us. But they will not do them-.h-e.-, much j;ood if the. write .shell letters a. that from Mr G. "Witty, which we print to-day. The letter may not be Mr Witty's very own. but he takes the responsibility fnr it. He now denies having said that he heard Lady Guinness ask Mr Fisher to take care of the old messenger., at Parliament House. On this -point we, and we think everyone elso. -..ill prefer our reporter's notes to Mr Witty's longdelayed repudiation. If Mr Witty means to say that, he did not intend to us© the words in dispute, we shall let it go at that, and the more readily because wo can believe that a--, a

"Liberal" he talked much nonsense without meaning to do so. A. to the other point, Mr Witty admits that he made a mis-statement of fact, and that Mr Fisher stated an exact fact (namely, that the Government did not buy and distribute, free of charge, tobacco for the "specials"). It is foolish of Mr Witty to attempt to Quibble. He made a positive mis-statement, he misquoted an item in the Official Estimates, and he covered -Mr Fisher with gross abuse. AVo judge that the electors of Riccarton have noted their member's saci lapses, and that that is his only reason for struggling against facts. A frank admission of his error, and a frank apology to Mr Fisher, would help him moro than hi. obduracy in ofFence.

Most people remember how, during the rt.-ike. the Red Fed?., and their friends exclaimed against tho "violence" and "brutality" of tho Government in furnishing constablps to prevent tho rowdies from attacking persons and property. They will remember this afresh when they learn that the only complaint our "Liberal" friends have to make in regard to the proceedings in Wellington, when Sir J. G. Ward's and Mr Somple's friends howled Mr Fisher down, is a complaint against the presence of the pob'ce. The local organ of the "Liberals" is quite as touchy as Mr Semple himself concerning the liberty of "Liberals" and Red Feds, to howl in chorus and prevent other people from boing heard. In anticipation,, apparently, of another fine display of "Liberal" manners and sportsmanship when a Minister next speaks in Christchurch, our contemporary is demanding that even tho restraint of one or two men in uniform shall not bo imposed upon the Opposition's right to adopt the tactics of true "Liberalism."

In the meantime one of the lesser organs of the Opposition has placed the Wellington outrage in a new and interesting light. "If we take Mr Fisher's meeting," it says, "a_ an indication of popular favour, it seems evident that neither the Government nor the Social Democrats are desired, for tho representatives of both were howled down." Obviously, nothing seems to bo moro natural to this particular Opposition journal (which, being printed in Sir J. G. Ward's district, may be considered as having "stable information" on nil the finer points of. "Liberalism") than that it should be the "Liberals" who caused all the uproar. Perhaps this is only an intelligent anticipation of the horrible fate of the "Liberals," namely, to die hooting the universe and all that therein is. The first developments of this destiny aro certainly beginning to appear. The hoots aro beginning to be directed now at the Social Democrats as well as at the "Tories." i

Mr L. M. Isitt writes to us to-day correcting his friend, Mr McCombs, in respect of one or two points in his criticism of their mutual friend, Mr G. W. Russell. The position of the member for Christchurch North is admittedly diflicult. He is a Prohibitionist and a bare-majority man, and used to be nothing else. But nowadays he is also a "Liberal," and as such he feels bound to stick to Mr Russell as a fellow "Liberal," even at the risk of appearing to have mixed more politics with his water than is discreet. Actually tho little blow which he strikes for his poor friend, Sir Russell, does not touch the point at issue, although ail these bits of news about the ricketty carpenters who nailed the .«haky Top Hat Ministry together are of sonic real interest. One of these days wo shall know all about that quaint episode in our political history, but in the meantime the trying position of Sir Isitt as a sort of buffer between his friends should be noted by all young men contemplating political life as an example of the terrible difficulties a good man may encounter who blunders into politics full of ignorance and "independence."

At Nelson last night the anti-Reform-ers, led by the member for Nelson, were successful in creating the disorder which eeems to have become their last remaining form of argument. The member for Nelson, who obtained the votes of the Reformers in 1911 by pretending to bo an opponent of the old Government, is, of course, very bitter and desperate, for he knows that ho is certain of defeat at tho coming election. Ho is not to be judged by the ordinary standards: ho is unique. Therefore we may assume that the other anti-Reform members will hardly be likely to follow his example of attending personally to the work of creating the disturbance wftich is Liberalism's favourite retort to criticism nowadays.