OUR LONDON LETTER

Evening Star, Issue 15512, 6 June 1914, Page 7

OUR LONDON LETTER

[By W. L. George.] April 29. Though this be not the Ist of January, I am going to make a good resolution: I do not nay that I will give up entirely political' prophesy, but henceforth I will give up prophesying about Irish affairs. They are beyond me; they aTe beyond Zadkiel and Old Moore. In my last two letters I suggested, basing myself on good information' and on what I believed .to be my commoa sense, that an election seemed very likely in June or in July, or in the autumn. And now so much lias happened that I would not be surprised if the writ for dissolution -were issued to-day, or deferred until the end of next year. It is all the fault of the Irish: one oannot cope with the Celtic temperament. You will the recent events ; a't the Curragh, the extraordinary proceedings of General Paget interrogating officers to find out whether they would obey orders, the rumors that warships had been ordered to the Irish coast, the declaration of the officers to their commander (General Goug"), from which it appeared that they woulu not obev if ordered to attack' the Ulstermen ; •th© undertaking to the General that this would not happen, the withdrawal of the undertaking, the resignation of the Secretary of State for War, the assumption of tins office by Mr Asquith. I he triumph of muddle. After this fortnight of chaos, the efforts of the Opposition to discredit the Government naturally did not abate. They took an extreme and most astute form—namely, it was sought to prove that the Government had been -engaged in a "plot" to provoke the Ulstermen into acts of violence which would justify the Cabinet in using troops against them. It was suggested that the movement of troops to Belfast had not at all been precautionary, and that on the plea of guarding arsenals and storehouses it was intended to exasperate the Ulster volunteers, and then to crush them with military force. How the Unionists got any information about this nobody knows. I do not say their information was correct, but it was not quite incorrect. But it appears at once that they ought not to have known anything about it if officers had done their duty, which in that case was to hold their tongues. It may be an old-fashioned idea that the Army's duty is not to ask the reason why, but, as an old soldier who' was onoe called upon to go with his regiment and to curb a strike with which he fully sympathised, I must necessarily uphold it. la those days I was a Socialist, but when I was lined up with my company on the market square I had fully determined to fire if I was told to, because I did not consider myself entitled to argue when I was wearing my soldier's coat. So it is not surprising that I do not sympathise with the -British officers who have evidently been giving secret information to the political agents of the Unionist party. But more important than this question is whether the Unftarmation was night or wrong. If the Cabinet had indeed tried •to procure bloodshed, its members should be hounded out of politics; but I do not think that this has been the case. The White Paper which was issued on the 22nd April shows that General Paget takes the whole responsibility for the misunderstanding with the officers. He told them that precautionary measures were to be taken, and that he wanted to take them quietly, because he did not want to exasperate anybody. He told those officers who were domiciled in Ulster that he would allow them to disappear for a while, which clearly shows that the Government were ready to spare their feelings; but he also made it clear that no other officers would be allowed to evade their duty. He went on to ask the commanding officers if they would obey orders; but he did not trouble about their subordinates. Here a misunderstanding arose. Four of the commanding officers thought that they had to consult their subordinates, and thence came i the whole trouble. As for the Admiralty orders, it appears that Held gUIIS irere shipped to exercise the men during bad weather; naval officers were ordered to land in plain clothes. Belfast was to be placed under a military government if; required. Now, there is nothing to say j against General Paget. He is a soldier, not a politiean, and perhaps he did not put the case clearly. He was afraid of military movements and was overruled by the Government; but to say, as the Unionist papers are sayI ing, that because the Government over'Tuled him they were not adverse to blood- ! shed is merely ridiculous The Government's business is to take the opinion of their military advisers, but they are not bound thereby. We are governed by a Cabinet, not by a general. The Cabinet, which has the responsibility, must have the power, i And therefore I do not think it "fishy" that the Admiralty orders were countermanded by Mr Asquith. It is suggested that the Premier was in conflict with the Admiralty. Perhaps! But even if that is so it does not prove that the Admiralty was " plotting " to create civil war. To sum up, I should say that the Government, who for two years have been continually provoked by much more than the insults of the Opposition—namely, by the drilling and arming of a rebel force—were doing nothing but their duty in strengthening the police by a military contingent. In fact, they were not doing enough. They were acting in a weak, temporising manner, and when I think of what the French or German Government would have done, let alone the Russian, if thousands of men had armed and drilled to resist a proposed law, I must smile. In any country but , England Sir Edward Carson would have been brought to book 18 months ago, and if the agitation had persisted the streets of Belfast would have been swept by machine guns. The crime of the Government has been their weakness. I do not think the Unionists would have been so weak, though of course their enemies would have been not Protestant Ulstermen, but Roman Catholic Nationalists, and, as I have said more than once in these columns, shooting Irish Catholics is a national English sport; fox-hunt-ing, even, is less popular. And now, if one wanted more evidence that the Government ought to have strnck, and hard, a long time ago, there is the mostextraordinnary development in British history since the Cromwellian rising. In the middle of the night the Ulster volunteers mobilise at certain points, draw the attention of the Government agents, stop telegraphic and telephonic communication in Northern Ireland by tapping the wires, surround the police, the Custom officials, and the coastctuardsmen, seize a railway station in Belfast, commandeer country carts and a ship. In other words, they make a local revolution, establish a new Government, and under cover thereof they land anything between 25,000 and 35,000 rifles, with a couple of million rounds of ammunition. They have 500 motor cars to carry the material away. They do so, distribute it, conceal it, and the next day England awakes to the fact that a reign of force has been established in one of the provinces of the kingdom. Commentary seems almost useless. There is nothing to add to the fact themselves; but what do they involve? They involve that force has suddenly become more important than law, that the King's Ministers may be flouted if enough men will band themselves together and arm themselves against them; they involve that in future men will know at the bottom of their hears that their rights do not matter much and their votes very little; that they will sain more, whether they be Protestonts or Catholics, strikers or capitalists, reluctant income taxpayers or women suffragists, if they threaten violence than if they make a case. A pleasant result of 3,000 years of European civilisation ! What are we to say in future (if this is not punished) to the strikers and their cudgeh, to the women suffragists and their torches ? We can say nothing if it is tolerated, as I half suspect it will be. True, M» Asquith gave i vent yesterday to brave words: " In view of this grave and unprecedented outrage the Government will take appropriate steps to protect the officers and servants of the King and His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of their duties and in the enjoyment of their legal rights." What does that mean? Are the carriers of arms to be arrested? Are Sir Edward Carson, Lord Londonderry, Captain Craig, and the others to be tried for nigh treason ? Are the Ulster volunteers to be disarmed ? Well, perhaps all that ought to be done, but how J Here we "have anything be-

tween 10,000 and 30,000 desperate men,: well armed because the Government were weak and foolish enough to ailow them to arm. ""' They will not tamely submit to coercion,- riot now at least, for their blood is up. Of course Ulster may be blockaded, more or less starved out, but that seems very hard on the population of Ulster, the enormous majority of which is perfectly peaceful. I can hardly believe that the 'Government can start war on their own. They may, and will not be quite wrong, but it must be charged against them now, which could not have been charged a year ago, that if there is fighting the Government will be as much to blame as the men who ar© opposing them The events of the next few days should make a very lurid page in British history —unless nothing happens. As I said at the beginning of this article, I .have given up prophesying about Irish' affairs. We are not alone in our troubles. The ■great friendly nation of the United States seems to be faced with an equally complicated situation, and President Wilson, who has represented for a long time that rare quality in American politics—namely, honor—scorns to be the man at fault. There is practically a state of war between the United States and Mexico, and when we consider the details it looks very much as if the. Democratic Government -had muddled in their relations with Huerta much as our own has done with Sir Edward Carson. As you are aware, President Huerta, the alleged murderer of the lato Mexican President Madero, was never recognised by tJie American Government. This naturally irritated him. There were a _number of unpleasant incidents, ending m the arrest of a party o£ American marines who had landed at Tampieo to buy stores. They carried no arms, and were released within a few hours with an apology. _ The commander apologised, Huerta apologised; one would have thought that was enough. But, no. President Wilson storms and blusters, demands 'that the Mexicans shall salute the American Flag. Huerta demands that the salute shall be acknowledged, which is quite fair, and then, while the wrangle continues as to whether the salute shall be reciprocal or concurrent, the American warships appear before Vera Cruz, seize the town, and cause a fair amount of loss of life. Congress declares that this is a war with Mexico, brushing away President "vilson's futile suggestion tha*fc it is a punitive expedition against Huerta. And there you are. For a'ridiculous little affray such as that, two countries are practically dragged into war, and the President, owing to his obstinate moral pride, which forbids him to recognise Huerta, because he is a murderer (as if most Mexican, Presidents were .not murderers), finds himself on the point of going down in American history as "Bloody Wilson." I think he will be spared, for Brazil, Chile, and Argentine have stepped in with an offer of mediation, which I understand to be accepted; but he is very lucky. President Wilson has a wonderful record as a literary man and educationist, but he appears to suffer frsm that most intolerable tiling, American moral sense. Now morality which may be suitable in a University is merely a nuisance in international politics. It is all very well saying that Huerta is no good, but the one thing to .look at is whether he can establish a decent Government in fliis unfortunate country. After aJI, a reformed thief makes a very good! policeman. But no, President Wilson is a moralist. Huerta is a bad man ; one must have nothing to do with him. That is why the- President has tried to humiliate Huerta, and that is why he has brought his country to the edge of a war of conquest, which, if it takes place, will mean that every Mexican will unite to resist the United States. Thff idea that Mexico should salute the American warships without proper reply is simply childish ; you will remember that Gessler was shot by William Tell for exactly the same reason. Still,' the war seems adjourned. President Wilson is beloved of the gods. A small iliterary sensation lias been provided by the publication ■of some new Keats poems. They seem to have been written when he started for Italy in 1820, but they are not,, on the whole, very interesting. One of them (on Covent Garden) is amusing: Sir, Covent Garden is a monstrous beast. From morning, four o'clock, to twelve at noon, It swallows cabbages without a spoon, And then, from twelve till two, this Eden made is A promenade for cooks and ancient ladies; And then for supper, 'stead of soup and poaches, It swallows chairmen, damns, and hackney coaches. But the principal poem contains some lines that do Keats no credit:

You say you love; but then your hand No soft squeeze for squeeze returneth, It is like a statue's, dead,

While mine to passion burnetii. O love me truly! 0 breathe a word or two of fire! Smile, as if those words should burn me ;

Squeeze, as lovers should—O kiss, And in thy heart inurn mo! 0 love me truly! That Keats could have used a word such as "squeeze," and repoat ft. is almost nauseous. Making all allowances for the fact that a word such as squeeze, which was iii common use in the early days of the nineteenth century, has now become vulgar, one cannot help thinking that it is very unfortunato that unsatisfactory Work should be brought to light just because it is signed with a. great name.