Evening Post. SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 1917. MR. WELLS & REPUBLICANISM

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 101, 28 April 1917, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 1917. MR. WELLS & REPUBLICAN ISM

Mr. H. G. Wells, who in 1908 published under the title of " New Worlds for Old " a brilliant exposition of modem Socialism, and has patented many another now world since, is now of opinion that the time is opportune for a Republican, propaganda. While "war with a thousand battles and shaking a hundred thrones " is forwarding) as wo believe, the cause of democracy, why not display our •sympathy for the nations which are winning their way to freedom at so terrible a cost? Mr. Wells accordingly thinks that the moment is ripe lor organisation with the object of encouraging Republican movements in Central Europe. "He suggests," according to the cabled summary of his letter to The Times which we published this week, "a series of Republican societies in the chief towns in Britain to express sympathy with their fellow Republicans abroad, and to form a basis for, more purposeful activities, which need not conflict with loyalty to the Thrones giving clear expression to the gre£t volume of Republican feeling which has always existed in a British community." It is not surprising to hear that The Times refers to the'letter as showing " how clever men sometimes write very foolishly," and denounces Republican manifestations in' Britain as absurd. A Republican propaganda of an ordinary kind in Britain at the time which Mr, Wells regards as ripe for it would indeed be ; treasonable as well as absurd; but Mr. Wells eliminates the treason and heightens the absurdity by declaring that the Republicanism which he advocates will not necessarily conflict with loyalty to the Throne.

It is obvious that either Mr. Wells's loyalty or his Republicanism is likely to be misunderstood by less subtle minds. How will he rally the Republicans of Central Europe to break their fetters on the heads of their tyrants if he comes to them, wearing a royal livery himself? Arid how will he persuade his own fel-low-countrymen, whose wits, if slower than his/own, may have the advantage of being more logical, that he is really loyal to the Throne when he preaches not merely the dethronement of kings but 'the destruction of thrones to other nations? A propaganda thu3 encumbered by mental reservation and self-contradic-tion on a fundamental' point may be a. good thing to fool with, but call hardly serve any serious and useful purpose. How the idea will strike many million loyal subjects of the King—in round figures some three-fourths of a total of four hundred and fifty millions—was promptly explained in an authoritative and uncompromising fashion. When receiving the Freedom of Manchester a day or two after the publication of Mr. Wells's letter, the Maharajah of Bikanir, " speaking as one from India, where the teachings of traditions and sentiments are deeply inspired by veneration and devotion for the Sovereign," said that "the views and suggestions of Mr. H. G. Wells will be repudiated with scorn and repugnance throughout India."

This energetic protest may doubtless be taken^as representing pretty accurately the iantimantd of thoie for whom.

Neither the Hindus, of whom the Maharajah includes 700,000 among his subjects,, nor the Mohammedans are democrats by nature. " The authority of a king," says Sir Bampfylde Fuller, "appeals strongly to Oriental feelings; indeed, according to Hindu ideas, devotion to him is a religious sentiment." The strength of the same sentiment among the Mohammedans of India, . and the strength in particular of their devotion to the British Crown, have even stood the test dnring the present war of enthusiastic service in the field against a Mohammedan Power. Another eminent Oriental authority, Sir Valentine Chirol, fully bears out Sir Bampfylde Fuller's testimony. " The sentiment of reverence for the Crown," he says, " is widespread and deep-rooted among all races and creeds in India. It is perhaps the one tradition common to all. It' went out spontaneously to Queen Victoria, whose length of years and widowed isolation appealed with a peculiar sense of lofty and pathetic dignity to the imagination of her Indian peoples. It has been materially reinforced by the pride of personal acquaintance, since India has been twice honoured with the presence of the immediate successor to the Throne." The sentiment of ( which Sir Valentine Chirol speaks has been intensified since he wrote by the visit iof the King himself to India and the great ceremony of his coronation at Delhi.

If the President of a British Republic could not awake in the Dominions the devoted, loyalty that they all feel for the Crown, it is easy to appreciate what a disastrous revolution the full carrying out of Mr. Wells's ideal programme would work in Indian sentiment. Disraeli showed a clearer understanding; of that sentiment than his Liberal opponents in 1876, when he aroused their wrath by proposing to have Queen Vic"toria proclaimed Empress of India. Writing years after the event, Justin .M'Carthy reflects the fury of the Liberal opposition to the proposal, " A strong dislike was felt," he writes, "to this superfluous and tawdry addition to the ancient style of the Sovereigns Of England. ... To convert the immemorial crown of the English Sovereign into a brand-new glittering imperial diadem seemed to most persons simply an act of vulgarity." Yet this "act of vulgarity " is now generally recognised as an act of statesmanship. The " preposterous innovation," as Justin M'Carthy also calls it, is one that no Liberal would venture to disturb. In the sober language of history, Sir John Strachey describes the effect of this direct assertion of the special authority over India as "marked and extremely important." Disraeli, with his much-derided Oriental imagination, was able to see some things that are concealed even from the keen intelligence of Mr. H. G. Wells,