The Evening Star TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1902.

Evening Star, Issue 11667, 28 January 1902, Page 4

The Evening Star TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1902.

DtrNTTDiN's two most notorious pro-Boers were greatly in evidence on Pro.Bwr Saturday. In the morning Apologetics. Mr Barclay, with more audacity than discretion, made a vain attempt to seduce the men of the Hillside Workshops from their Imperial allegiance, while in the evening the ex-acting-editor of the ' Outlook' meandered saponaeeously over a column and a quarter of our space. The misrepresentative of the City lighted upon an experience which is not likely soon to fa do from his mind. Oft in the stilly night, ere slumber's chain has bound him, stern memory will brin" back the sight of that muster of patriotic workers, and the significant sound of their lusty cheers for the great Minister who (according to Mr Barclay) is " in al-' liance with financial sharks," and has allowed himself to become the " willing tool " of "a, few unscrupulous schemers." An historic painter, or at least a dexterous cartoonist, might find a fitting subject in the. spectacle of Mr Barclay standing with his back to the fence, while toil-marked hands waved the Union Jack before him—that glorious standard which has braved, a thousand years, the battle and the breeze, and which yet terrific burns, albeit to one jaundiced imagination it is "stained with a, fold blot." Be it remembered that these men, who (in felicitious phrase) expressed their "pride and confidence" in the "Christian statesmanship" of tho Colonial Secretary, are by no means prepossessed in favor of tho present Imperial Government, Mr Chamberlain (as Mr Barclay himself would say) is not their natural letider, and probably nine out of every ten of them are quite out of sympathy with his domestic politics. Yet so keen is their sense of tho need of Imperial solidarity —so strong is their belief in the righteousness of tho Imperial cause and in the splendid thoroughness with which Mr Chamberlain has maintained it—that they are constrained to ignore natural predilections and (it may be) ancient prejudices, and range themselves boldly on the side of the great strong man who has made himself to be feared and hated by Britain's foreign and domestic foes. Moreover, these level-headed and leal-hearted workers have comrades —perhaps relatives—lighting for tho Flag at the present moment; and here comes Mr Barclay and tells them that the Flag bears a "foul blot," and that their friends—sons, brothers, mates—are taking part in " a scandalous and infamous war," which has excited the horror of the civilised world." Aye, and he tells them that "all tho world knows now" that this is so : consequently they and their fighting comrades know it. And yet, at the same time, he would have them believe that he has never suid a word that can justly lie regarded as a reflection on the Imperial forces.. He. declared on Saturday : " I know "that the conduct and valor of the army "have been the redeeming features of this " wor." But what did he write on December 30? " Wno wotji.d kvkr ttave EXPECTED TO RITE BRITAIN' IN SOUTII AFRICA

COrYTXG TTIE METHODS Ol' WAHFAItK ADOPTED BY CBXERAT, WKYLEIt IX CTBA?" Is that a reflection on the "politicians only"? Again on Saturday Mr Barclay declared: " I have always argued that this war, "having been begun, should be fought out. "I have never suggested anything to the "contrary." What about the following declaration, made in our columns on December 30?—" The anti-war man is rapidly " becoming quite the fashion. The fact " is that this war has been unnecessary and " unjust from the start, so far as the poli- " tical part of it is concerned, and the "people of Britain are now at last thor- " ougbly grasping the truth. They are "rapidly coming to the conclusion that the " time has come when we should cease chok- " ing the life out of these ragged, wretched "farmers." In other words, the time has como when we should stop the war—the "choking" reference being one of Mr Barclay's pleasant little paraphrases. There seems to bo a difference between Mr Barclay at white heat on December 30—with his allusions to General Weyier and the " choking " business—and Mr Barclay with his back to the fence, and with his lame apologetics, on January 25. The electors of Dunedin will do well to keep the less cautious wording of the earlier utterance carefully in mind. Ixit them remember "General Weyier" and the "unholy, infamous war," and the. " foul stain" upon the Flag of Briton. By th? way, Mr Barclay will perhaps deny that he had any wish on Saturday to saduce the railway workers from their Imperial allegiance. But what other import can be attached to his reading of that precious manifesto signed by Joseph Arch and Co.? Happily the workers of New Zealand arcs able to recognise and to regret that many of the* Labor leaders at Home have sadly failed to appreciate the true significance of the Imperial situation. Mr Hutchison's pawky but most inconclusive lucubration need not detain us lon< T . Only a few points call for notice on our part. 'The ox-autiing-ediior is. "astonished " at the hubbub aroused by his proBoer article*. True, small importance would have attached to them if their source had been purely personal, but they came ostensibly not from Mr Hutchison but from tho 'Outlook.' Now, the 'Outlook' is, in an appreciable sense, the representative organ of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational Churches in this district; and when Mr Hutchison declares that he did not know, and had no means of knowing, that his pro-Boer articles would give offence, we can only say that he must have been strangely blind to the state of public feeling among Presbyterians and throughout the local community. He must have kept his eyes tightly Shut for more than two years. It pleases him to assume that public opinion is in a " feverish" state ; but nothing could be further from the truth. Feverishness does not last for nearly thirty months. A fixed and reasoned belief in the justice of the British cause, and a dogged determination to do all that in us lies to further the triumph of that cause —these are, and have been from the start, the main conditions of public opinion. Per-

haps we should also mention, as a third element, an intense and justifiable irritation at the presence of a small amount of domestic disloyalty in our midst. Mr Hutchison asserts that he has "not come across a "single attempt to disprove any one of his "statements.' It is pretty evident that he has taken good care not to "come across" any arguments that tell against his heroic Boers (worthy of Leonidas and Marathon!), but we may just observe that his "wise" style (to borrow the Rev. Mr Sutherland'? description) does not readily lend itself either to proof or to disproof. It is "wining to wound and yet afraid to strike." How can "disproof" be brought to boar upon the fatuous hankering after Mr Gladstone's help to which expression was given in the ' Outlook' article? Nevertheless there has been plenty of " disproof" if Mr Hutchison will but recognise it. Hia assertion that the Empire has set itself to exterminate the Boers is disproved by the reiterated pronouncements of British policy by Mr Chamberlain, as well as by the actual military policy which is being pursued. The Secretary of State declares that the war would have been over by this time if the British had not taken charge of the Boer women and children. In short, the war has been waged with almost Quixotic mercifulness on our part: yet domestic disloyalty dares to prate of " beartlessuess " and to insinuate that " only some wild " paroxysm of temporary unreason could "induce the British people to tolerate some "things now going on in South Africa"! Does Mr Hutchison want disproof of his slanders regarding the concentration camps? He may find it in tho fact that of all the visitors who have investigated the subject tho imaginative and neurotic Miss Hobhouse has alone pronounced an unfavorable judgment. By the way, Mr Hutchison thinks that the Presbytery's resolution might have embodied a hint that ho had acted " conscientiously." Well, tho Presbytery evidently held that, lie had been guilty of something very like a breach of trust, and conscientiousness is neither here nor there in connection with siich an offence —nor (we may odd) with the offence of disloyalty. Liko Joseph Surface, Mr Hutchison pleads that liis sentiments, at least, were all that could bs: desired. " 0 damn your sentiments!" cried Sir Peter Teazle; and our readers may remember that Sir John Tenniel made telling use, of the scene with reference to the case of Mr Gladstone and General Gordon. The Duncdin Presbytery could hardly use rhiv; emphatic quotation, but a lay journalist need not be quite, so scrupulous. Mr Hutchison winds up with an irrelevant little story about Lord John Russell —"the Reform Bill Lord John Russell"—and 'The Prisoner of Zenda.' Now, 1/ord John died in 1873, and Anthony Hope's book (which the story supposes the statesman to have read) was published about sixteen year* later. Yet Mr Hutchison tells us thai ho "came across" tho story in the biography of "the Reform Bill Lord John Russell.'' A trivial matter, no doubt; but strikingly typical of pro-Boer " facts."